Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

F1 Chiefs aim to make cars harder to drive


  • Please log in to reply
231 replies to this topic

#201 Sennasational

Sennasational
  • Member

  • 453 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 01 October 2014 - 07:18

The problem with replacement batteries at powerstations is, how many do you need, and where, every station will need a large amount of them, they are currently complaining about making enough batteries with current demands, if we then atleast tripple or 10 fold the demand, the price will go up instead of down as now.

For racing it could be a pitstop, I am sure with the right system switching could happen under 10 seconds making it a real race option.

For normal daily use the charge time of 8 hours is not a problem, you as a person would spend less time recharching your car on a weekly basis then if you where to use petrol. Cause you only need to be there to plug in and later to plug out, which only takes a few seconds each time.

 

And as with most things motor racing this would eventually trickle down to the consumer. Possibly. It's a hell of a lot more likely to lead to a real world practical solution to the problem of limited range on electric vehicles than switching the whole bloody car.

 

Electric cars are still at a point in which they struggle to reach a 100 mile range before needing a 10 hour~ charge. For some people that wouldn't even cover the daily commute. Ideally they could create a battery with a 1000 mile range and maintain the 10 hour charge time, but until then replaceable batteries are a more sensible option to explore than replaceable cars. 

 

Anyway, that's probably enough on an off topic topic. I think your suggestion was a good one, with higher real world potential than you gave it credit, that's all.



Advertisement

#202 TopDog85

TopDog85
  • Member

  • 204 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 01 October 2014 - 07:25

I think it's time they freed the reins, give the teams the options of running a full tank or if they prefer to do the race in short stints let them refuel. The same for the tyres, none of this mandatory stop rubbish, if a driver wants to drive to the end on one set of tyres then so be it.

Edited by TopDog85, 01 October 2014 - 07:31.


#203 RedRabbit

RedRabbit
  • Member

  • 3,179 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 01 October 2014 - 07:28

Im just very worried the FIA will come up with another knee-jerk change that will just look stupid

 

Agreed with this. Having given it some thought, I believe the changes needed to make the RACES more challenging again are actually quite simple :

 

1. Grippier tires that last more than 5 laps, so that drivers are able to push hard for the entire stint.

2. More fuel. Give the teams all the fuel they need to drive the race flat out. Make "fuel saving modes" illegal.

3. Allow teams to rebuild an engine every 1000km. This will also allow more flat out racing as teams wont be as concerned about saving engines.

 

There's no need to actually change any of the major regulations. As others have said, engineers will never again build a car that is difficult to drive, simply because they have decades of knowledge to draw on now. And i for one DO NOT want to see F1 cars being made "challenging" on purpose through some arbitrary rule. The challenge should be in completing the race distance at a speed faster than economy cruise, and if they allow that, these comments about the cars being to easy to drive will disappear quickly when the drivers step out the cockpit after 60 qualifying laps looking a bit more dishevelled than they do now after their Sunday afternoon cruises.



#204 TopDog85

TopDog85
  • Member

  • 204 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 01 October 2014 - 07:34

Agreed with this. Having given it some thought, I believe the changes needed to make the RACES more challenging again are actually quite simple :

1. Grippier tires that last more than 5 laps, so that drivers are able to push hard for the entire stint.
2. More fuel. Give the teams all the fuel they need to drive the race flat out. Make "fuel saving modes" illegal.
3. Allow teams to rebuild an engine every 1000km. This will also allow more flat out racing as teams wont be as concerned about saving engines.

There's no need to actually change any of the major regulations. As others have said, engineers will never again build a car that is difficult to drive, simply because they have decades of knowledge to draw on now. And i for one DO NOT want to see F1 cars being made "challenging" on purpose through some arbitrary rule. The challenge should be in completing the race distance at a speed faster than economy cruise, and if they allow that, these comments about the cars being to easy to drive will disappear quickly when the drivers step out the cockpit after 60 qualifying laps looking a bit more dishevelled than they do now after their Sunday afternoon cruises.


Regarding the fuel I think the best solution would be to fill up every car with the same amount of fuel because teams will all always try and underfuel to gain the smallest of advantages.

#205 RedRabbit

RedRabbit
  • Member

  • 3,179 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 01 October 2014 - 07:37

I think they should have used that design for the Formula E race class. Make it look different and the reduced air resistance woudl surely up the performance a lot.
And they should just add quick switching battery packs, might not be the thing for real practical use but for racing it would be fine.

 

It would definitely have added a huge element of appeal to Formula E and really connected with the audience they're aiming at. Right now, the cars are a little wishy washy, with that design it would make a serious statement.



#206 zanquis

zanquis
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 01 October 2014 - 08:04

Sennasational, just having a 100 miles range is more then enough for most people's daily commute, why should we wait for a solution that could work for everybody if we have a solution that could work for the majority (probably 90% already commute less then 60 miles daily) without harming the few it won't work for. Actually if everone who would drive less then 100 miles daily switch to EV the demands for fuel at the stations would decline so much that the price of oil would go down so that they would also benefit from it.

 



#207 Sennasational

Sennasational
  • Member

  • 453 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 01 October 2014 - 08:43

Sennasational, just having a 100 miles range is more then enough for most people's daily commute, why should we wait for a solution that could work for everybody if we have a solution that could work for the majority (probably 90% already commute less then 60 miles daily) without harming the few it won't work for. Actually if everone who would drive less then 100 miles daily switch to EV the demands for fuel at the stations would decline so much that the price of oil would go down so that they would also benefit from it.

 

 

Actually, the only reason oil is as 'cheap' as it currently is, is because it is sold in such massive quantities. If people started to use less and not need it, the price would more than likely go up else it would no longer be cost effective to dig it out of the ground. 

 

Why shouldn't we be pursuing a solution for those of us who need to drive more than 100 miles straight without an opportunity for a 10 hour waiting period to charge a battery? If you're pro electric car, surely making it a viable option for 100% of the people is worth exploring, especially when it would serve as no detriment to the people whose lifestyle can already accommodate the electric car.

 

Your initial post rightfully stated that the use of a changeable battery pack in Formula E was a better solution for limited range than they currently have. I agree. However your point that it would not be useful in the real world is the only bit I'm arguing. And I'm not sure if it would be all that useful in honesty, but I'm absolutely sure that it would be more useful in the real world than using 2 cars.



#208 zanquis

zanquis
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 01 October 2014 - 09:25

Sennasational, I am not against finding a solution for them, but why should we almost force the rest to wait for those with special needs?

So for the people for who a normally battery is good, then it is good. If i go on vacation I can rent a car for the money I saved and drive in a bit more luxery.

For those who do not need it, do not go bother with a second car or replacing battery's during a travel. Just use a normal car or one with a range extender. People should stop focussing on a 100% solution, different people, different needs, different cars.

 

 

With regard of the oil price, yes the manufactoring cost per litre of oil would go down, but the cost price of oil per litre when it comes out of the ground will go down drastically.
This advantage is bigger then the disadvantage, so the overal price at the gas station will go down.
 


Edited by zanquis, 01 October 2014 - 09:28.


#209 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,074 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 October 2014 - 12:36

So? When was the last change in F1 that was down to market research, or even vaguely in line with consumer opinion? I agree with you, but the fact that it's something some people actually want is the very reason it'll never happen. 

 

My gut feeling is that many of the many sit on the TWG



#210 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 01 October 2014 - 13:42

Am I the only one who fears they might come up with yet another utterly ridiculous "solution"?

 

Ban power steering.  The cars were too fast -> PS.

 

Now they are slow again. they don't require it.  (indycars have no power steering, minardi for many years had no power steering)  :yawnface:



#211 Gyno

Gyno
  • Member

  • 657 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 01 October 2014 - 18:33

Allow refueling  and let teams rebuild their engines as ReDRabbit mentioned.

 

No stupid fuel limits and fuel flow limits.

Proper tires that last  for the entire race with good pace or for 20 laps pushed really hard.

 

This would open up strategies.

1 could fill the car up with enough fuel to make it through the race without  stopping while his team mate could do 3 stops and push hard with low fuel.



#212 TopDog85

TopDog85
  • Member

  • 204 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 01 October 2014 - 18:35

Allow refueling and let teams rebuild their engines as ReDRabbit mentioned.

No stupid fuel limits and fuel flow limits.
Proper tires that last for the entire race with good pace or for 20 laps pushed really hard.

This would open up strategies.
1 could fill the car up with enough fuel to make it through the race without stopping while his team mate could do 3 stops and push hard with low fuel.


Are you copying my ideas?? Haha. Great minds think alike 😉

#213 zanquis

zanquis
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 02 October 2014 - 05:52

Well removing the refueling ban as he suggest is a seriously BAD idea, not one of a great mind in that way. It is clear, remove the refueling bans and they will refuel every time they change tires and we go back to the almost dark ages of boringness of F1 when we had a 1 and a half hour long glorified qualifying session, unless a car brakes down or a driver really slips up the starting grid will be the finishing grid then. Sure a few exceptions when someone screwed up their qualifying but on a normal weekend you would not see any real overtaking.



#214 TopDog85

TopDog85
  • Member

  • 204 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 02 October 2014 - 08:20

Well removing the refueling ban as he suggest is a seriously BAD idea, not one of a great mind in that way. It is clear, remove the refueling bans and they will refuel every time they change tires and we go back to the almost dark ages of boringness of F1 when we had a 1 and a half hour long glorified qualifying session, unless a car brakes down or a driver really slips up the starting grid will be the finishing grid then. Sure a few exceptions when someone screwed up their qualifying but on a normal weekend you would not see any real overtaking.


You didn't read it properly, allow refuelling but design tyres that can last a race distance so some teams might decide on doing a no stopper to the end.

#215 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 23,156 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 02 October 2014 - 09:11

You didn't read it properly, allow refuelling but design tyres that can last a race distance so some teams might decide on doing a no stopper to the end.

 

Doesn't work like that. In the refuelling era the Bridgestone tyres lasted forever and could be pushed extremely hard. The teams still invariably always went for fuel, even 1-stoppers were the exception rather than the norm, because the weight you saved from the fuel more than paid for the pitstop time.



#216 TopDog85

TopDog85
  • Member

  • 204 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 02 October 2014 - 09:55

Doesn't work like that. In the refuelling era the Bridgestone tyres lasted forever and could be pushed extremely hard. The teams still invariably always went for fuel, even 1-stoppers were the exception rather than the norm, because the weight you saved from the fuel more than paid for the pitstop time.


So theoretically all things being equal a car doing short stints would beat a car doing a no stopper?

#217 zanquis

zanquis
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 02 October 2014 - 10:04

I read it properly TopDog, I Just also realize it was a bad idea.

Also I would find it interesting if they ever did a test of a modern car on older tires.
Bridgestone made very constant tires that could last a race (since they had too last that long anyway)

but they where never asked to make tires that woudl degrade to creat a tactical element. They just needed to be safe.

If anything I would prefer team to be given more freedom in tires.
Make the tires so that a hard tire could last a race and then a medium that would require a single pitstop, a soft that would require 2, a ultra soft that would require 3.
And allow teams to mix or use which tire they want to use. Is it better to just drive constant or to be faster but more stops, maybe with heavy car a different tire then during the end of the race.
If teams never use a certain tire, make it a bit faster, if they all use the same tire, make that one a bit slower. etc. This way Pirelli can make the impact they want but teams will have nothing to complain, so you had to change the tires too much? Well then you should have taken the harder compound.

 



#218 TopDog85

TopDog85
  • Member

  • 204 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 02 October 2014 - 10:12

I read it properly TopDog, I Just also realize it was a bad idea.

Also I would find it interesting if they ever did a test of a modern car on older tires.
Bridgestone made very constant tires that could last a race (since they had too last that long anyway)
but they where never asked to make tires that woudl degrade to creat a tactical element. They just needed to be safe.

If anything I would prefer team to be given more freedom in tires.
Make the tires so that a hard tire could last a race and then a medium that would require a single pitstop, a soft that would require 2, a ultra soft that would require 3.
And allow teams to mix or use which tire they want to use. Is it better to just drive constant or to be faster but more stops, maybe with heavy car a different tire then during the end of the race.
If teams never use a certain tire, make it a bit faster, if they all use the same tire, make that one a bit slower. etc. This way Pirelli can make the impact they want but teams will have nothing to complain, so you had to change the tires too much? Well then you should have taken the harder compound.

Good ideas but Pirelli haven't been the best at producing those type of tyres, we've seen on many occasions no delta difference between the two different compounds and also the harder tyre being no more durable than the softer tyre, basically it's been a lottery for who clicks with the tyres, 2012 was the best example of this.

Edited by TopDog85, 02 October 2014 - 10:13.


#219 zanquis

zanquis
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 02 October 2014 - 10:26

And yes TopDog, with refueling cars would easily beat non-refueling cars. otherwise teams would have build a car that did not need a pitstop even in that era. (only Mika Salo managed that on Monaco 1997 If i recall correctly.)

But at the end of the race when the car is low on fuel it drives a couple of seconds faster a lap.
So after only 5 laps most cars would have already compensated for the extra refueling time needed.
Then you have to consider that most START on the faster tires and end on the slower tires, making it more impressive or obvious that the speed difference is big.

Otherwise lets compare for instance Alain Prost Spain 1993 vs Damon Hill Spain 1994,
Qualifying Prost did a 1:17.8, Hill only did a 1:22.5 So about 5 seconds slower, given that, if all things otherwise was the same the race over 65 laps should last about 5 and a half minutes longer. In reality the refeuling made them have a relativly speaking faster race pace. Resulting in the race only lasting less the 4 minutes longer, with Hill not needing to push as the number 2 was only driving in 5th gear and nr 3 was almost being lapped.

That means that if the cars where just as fast to begin with, the adding of refueling would make him about a minute faster over the race distance.



Advertisement

#220 TopDog85

TopDog85
  • Member

  • 204 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 02 October 2014 - 10:31

And yes TopDog, with refueling cars would easily beat non-refueling cars. otherwise teams would have build a car that did not need a pitstop even in that era. (only Mika Salo managed that on Monaco 1997 If i recall correctly.)

But at the end of the race when the car is low on fuel it drives a couple of seconds faster a lap.
So after only 5 laps most cars would have already compensated for the extra refueling time needed.
Then you have to consider that most START on the faster tires and end on the slower tires, making it more impressive or obvious that the speed difference is big.

Otherwise lets compare for instance Alain Prost Spain 1993 vs Damon Hill Spain 1994,
Qualifying Prost did a 1:17.8, Hill only did a 1:22.5 So about 5 seconds slower, given that, if all things otherwise was the same the race over 65 laps should last about 5 and a half minutes longer. In reality the refeuling made them have a relativly speaking faster race pace. Resulting in the race only lasting less the 4 minutes longer, with Hill not needing to push as the number 2 was only driving in 5th gear and nr 3 was almost being lapped.

That means that if the cars where just as fast to begin with, the adding of refueling would make him about a minute faster over the race distance.


Weren't the cars slowed down a lot at that point after Senna's death? Yeah thinking about it I was being silly thinking a car running full fuel could compete with a car doing shorter stints. My point is they should allow the teams a full choice of strategy and tyre choice, none of this mandatory change of compounds rubbish.

#221 Jeeves

Jeeves
  • Member

  • 1,089 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 02 October 2014 - 11:02

While I don't entirely share the sentiment of current F1 cars being too easy to drive, there are relatively simple ways of making them more of the opposite.

 

Just make the car setup more of a compromise:

 

- Put the power to the road through a more conventional limited-slip differential, rather than the electronically adjustable one they're using now.

- Someone mentioned engine maps. Limit the amount the teams can use during a season, to say, three.

- Some extra hp wouldn't hurt. Especially if it came from the Generator Unit with its sizeable low-end torque.

- Force a wider front / more narrow rear track, keep the weight distribution as it is.

- If there is no maximum wheelbase restriction, introduce it. A low(ish) value.

 

Though one should be careful not to overdo it, as then you'd have 20+ drivers tip-toeing around, trying to save the rear tires and making for a pretty appalling show.

 

 



#222 zanquis

zanquis
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 02 October 2014 - 11:05

yes, except NOT on fueling levels, cause history has proven, if you introduce refeuling you change the race into a extended qualifying, the same car that was fast with low fuel load will be also fast with ehh a low fuel load.  Now you actually have a difference how the car handles and driver need to manage it. Tire and fuel management has always been part of the sport and anyone who says it not, is either too young or just demented :p



#223 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,785 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 October 2014 - 23:03

I read it properly TopDog, I Just also realize it was a bad idea.

Also I would find it interesting if they ever did a test of a modern car on older tires.
Bridgestone made very constant tires that could last a race (since they had too last that long anyway)

but they where never asked to make tires that woudl degrade to creat a tactical element. They just needed to be safe.

If anything I would prefer team to be given more freedom in tires.
Make the tires so that a hard tire could last a race and then a medium that would require a single pitstop, a soft that would require 2, a ultra soft that would require 3.
And allow teams to mix or use which tire they want to use. Is it better to just drive constant or to be faster but more stops, maybe with heavy car a different tire then during the end of the race.
If teams never use a certain tire, make it a bit faster, if they all use the same tire, make that one a bit slower. etc. This way Pirelli can make the impact they want but teams will have nothing to complain, so you had to change the tires too much? Well then you should have taken the harder compound.

 

 

This gets mentioned a lot and is a complete fantasy unless you are going to produce 4 tailor-made compounds for each grid point in a matrix of tracks and weather conditions.

 


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 02 October 2014 - 23:04.


#224 zanquis

zanquis
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 03 October 2014 - 05:19

Knuckles, I know, tires are different on each track, but you could at least make a good average on it. The challenge is then on each track finding the right combination, it wont always be the same and might take some time to find the right balance.

#225 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 03 October 2014 - 11:33

So the cars are too easy to drive?

 

It's the car-park tracks. If you can just run off across white lines, and rejoin with no penalty (except a random FIA penalty if you are unlucky), of course it's going to be easier for the drivers.



#226 alexocfp

alexocfp
  • Member

  • 271 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 03 October 2014 - 12:36

F1 is a business that wants to maximize ratings and euros. They know the hardcore fan will watch no matter what so their goal is to capture the average fan, or create new fans.

These 2 types of fans want different thing. The average sports fan wants close racing and championships that get decided on the final lap of the final race. The super hardcore fan wants the cream to rise to the top. It doesn't matter if the best team and driver dominate. That fan will still watch.

The powers that run F1 will always cater more to the average fan than the hardcore fan simply because there are more of them. That is why passing via button pressing and double point nonsense was introduced. Video game style racing.

They fail to grasp that f1 is about excellence. Red bull and now Mercedes still dominated their seasons even during the parity era.

That being said, some things will never happen in the current climate. With so much focus on safety, the sport will not look and feel as dangerous as it did in the past. Safety advances in the last 20 years have been immense. After a heavy crash in the old days, you assumed the driver was dead. Now you assume he will walk away. Just like in the video games.

The other thing is that everyone has technology in their pockets so they aren't as awed by f1 technology as they were in the past. We all have touch screens and Internet connections on the go. When you see 15 people on their computers working on an f1 car, that is not as impressive a sight at it would have been 20 years ago. F1 needs to innovate. Have technology that looks different than what the masses have available to them.

On that subject, the way f1 hasn't embraced technology in terms of social media is laughable. Younger kids today want Internet feeds and contact with the drivers online. This can easily be fixed. How many sports don't have live internet feeds of their events?

Another thing is that cars look and sound the same. Wouldn't it be great if the cars looked and sounded different? This is easy to fix too. Just relax the rules. F1 has become overregulated. Every time there is innovation that gives a team an advantage, that innovation is stifled to make sure everyone is brought back down. F1 should be about rewarding excellence, not bunching everyone in the middle. Allow the designers to have different engines, and different car designs. Relaxing the technical rules should be a major priority.

Edited by alexocfp, 03 October 2014 - 12:39.


#227 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,997 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2014 - 04:57

So the cars are too easy to drive?

 

It's the car-park tracks. If you can just run off across white lines, and rejoin with no penalty (except a random FIA penalty if you are unlucky), of course it's going to be easier for the drivers.

 

I'm seeing this at Suzuka this weekend. A whole bunch of drivers have crashed during the very simple task of going around a corner (Ricciardo, Kobayashi, Gutierrez, Hamilton...etc...) which leads me to think that the cars are NOT as easy to drive as some people are purporting.

 

But on a track that had lots of tarmac runoff, I think all of these incidents would have had the driver simply rejoin the track, and nobody would have even known they'd happened.



#228 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,785 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 October 2014 - 06:23

Knuckles, I know, tires are different on each track, but you could at least make a good average on it. The challenge is then on each track finding the right combination, it wont always be the same and might take some time to find the right balance.

 

More or less what we have now, then



#229 zanquis

zanquis
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 04 October 2014 - 07:43

Yes but with the restrictions removed and the forced mix of tires gone, Pirelli will be forced to find a better balance between speed and endurance. Not saying they should last much longer, or that the cliff should go, which so many people complained about but just that it is enough to make teams think and gamble more.

#230 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,074 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 October 2014 - 08:11

F1 is a business that wants to maximize ratings and euros. They know the hardcore fan will watch no matter what so their goal is to capture the average fan, or create new fans.

These 2 types of fans want different thing. The average sports fan wants close racing and championships that get decided on the final lap of the final race. The super hardcore fan wants the cream to rise to the top. It doesn't matter if the best team and driver dominate. That fan will still watch.

The powers that run F1 will always cater more to the average fan than the hardcore fan simply because there are more of them. That is why passing via button pressing and double point nonsense was introduced. Video game style racing.

They fail to grasp that f1 is about excellence. Red bull and now Mercedes still dominated their seasons even during the parity era.

That being said, some things will never happen in the current climate. With so much focus on safety, the sport will not look and feel as dangerous as it did in the past. Safety advances in the last 20 years have been immense. After a heavy crash in the old days, you assumed the driver was dead. Now you assume he will walk away. Just like in the video games.

The other thing is that everyone has technology in their pockets so they aren't as awed by f1 technology as they were in the past. We all have touch screens and Internet connections on the go. When you see 15 people on their computers working on an f1 car, that is not as impressive a sight at it would have been 20 years ago. F1 needs to innovate. Have technology that looks different than what the masses have available to them.

On that subject, the way f1 hasn't embraced technology in terms of social media is laughable. Younger kids today want Internet feeds and contact with the drivers online. This can easily be fixed. How many sports don't have live internet feeds of their events?

Another thing is that cars look and sound the same. Wouldn't it be great if the cars looked and sounded different? This is easy to fix too. Just relax the rules. F1 has become overregulated. Every time there is innovation that gives a team an advantage, that innovation is stifled to make sure everyone is brought back down. F1 should be about rewarding excellence, not bunching everyone in the middle. Allow the designers to have different engines, and different car designs. Relaxing the technical rules should be a major priority.

 

I think you started off showing a grasp of what it's all about, then failed to understand yourself. F1 (or rather, the commercial rights holder) wants to maximize money - that's all. All the rest is stuff that you have to go through to maximize the money.



#231 zanquis

zanquis
  • Member

  • 5,174 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 05 October 2014 - 06:28

But also people saying cars are too easy to drive, I think this year they are actually harder to drive then before as the downforce is reduced, You can see cars running top speeds are up by a lot, sometimes more then 20 km/u. So yes the downforce levels are lower, the G-forces are lower BUT the skill to keep the car on the track is actually higher again. The highest level of skill required was probably in 1967 the last wingless year if I remember.



#232 neog

neog
  • New Member

  • 25 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 07 October 2014 - 01:42

So they finished ruining one of the last challenging and exciting corners in the sport by paving the run off at parabolica, then a week later are puzzled why the spectators think the sport is too easy and are having a inquiry in how to fix it? The stupidity is staggering. It is no point in making the cars hard to drive if the mistakes are not punished because every single track has been transformed into an open car park with no harsh penalties for mistakes. This new study is once again completely missing the point. The problem is that F1 is losing the spectacle, the risk, the danger which is what attracts the casual viewer. They want to see accidents, even the risk of it , the drivers flirting with danger, is enough but now there is nothing left to crash into, cars just run wide, no real risks, its all boring with not even a perception of danger.

 

Making the cars harder to drive will not fix this problem and will make no difference to the viewer. The cars are already quite hard to drive because they slide and move around quite a bit, far more than 2004 when it was point and shoot so this is once again a blind alley. What they need to do is dig up all the tarmac surrounding tracks, and put in grass and gravel, sharper curbs, and increase the skill level required to drive fast. The circuits will look much better and the public will enjoy watching the drivers flirting with danger once again.

 

As others have mentioned I am very scared by what new stupid contrived 'solution' these clowns will find.