75 replies to this topic

[Mat13]

The 50's, 60's F1 cars were many seconds off the pace of course but were so entertaining to watch.
No aero, skinny one compound full race distance tyres and highish power to weight ratio.
Why can't we have the fundamental elements of that with today's safety features and engineering, it would be a blast?


Take the profit margin away from the dairymaids, make it a mutual sport where the drivers and the engineering are the focus, not the circus.
The entertainment is then a product of exciting and interesting racing, not the other way around.

I was reading this... I can't help but think you're after something that wouldn't be F1 if it ever came to pass, and would have stripped the sport of its fundamental principles?

[PayasYouRace]

mat, no.

tyres that have a large operating temperature and produce a certain ground pressure, only safety and low drag aero, etc see my posts above

 

But the implications of what you're saying are to end up with Formula Ford crossed with 1960s F1 cars (which when you think about it are not too different apart from power levels).

 

They'd be so slow by today's standards. Sure, 1960s F1 cars are slow by today's standards, but they were mega quick at the time, even if not necessarily the quickest cars in the world. But times have moved on.

 

You only have to look at Indycar to see that quick cornering cars with downforce producing aero can race competitively and produce excitement. So I'd rather F1 adopt Indycar style aero restrictions than what you appear to be proposing. What you're proposing isn't even that clear.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 27 June 2015 - 09:17.

[Mat13]

But the implications of what you're saying are to end up with Formula Ford crossed with 1960s F1 cars (which when you think about it are not too different apart from power levels).

What you're proposing isn't even that clear.

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this.

[johnnycomelately1]

But the implications of what you're saying are to end up with Formula Ford crossed with 1960s F1 cars (which when you think about it are not too different apart from power levels).

 

They'd be so slow by today's standards. Sure, 1960s F1 cars are slow by today's standards, but they were mega quick at the time, even if not necessarily the quickest cars in the world. But times have moved on.

 

You only have to look at Indycar to see that quick cornering cars with downforce producing aero can race competitively and produce excitement. So I'd rather F1 adopt Indycar style aero restrictions than what you appear to be proposing. What you're proposing isn't even that clear.

If i could ask you to read my details, FF doesnt have 1.3:1 power to weight ratio.

i suppose part of this focus is on cornering speeds.

for brevity i will leave out acceleration away from corners but a lot of the excitement in the 60's cars came from attacking corners and drifting etc.

WITHOUT some confidence of sticking like glue due to aero and tyres working in their optimum 10 degree C range.

when there is such stickiness it allows the difference between drivers (and some degree cars) to be much smaller thus producing similar cornering speeds and dull racing.

i apologise at not being articulate, it is a complex matter.

[PayasYouRace]

If i could ask you to read my details, FF doesnt have 1.3:1 power to weight ratio.

i suppose part of this focus is on cornering speeds.

for brevity i will leave out acceleration away from corners but a lot of the excitement in the 60's cars came from attacking corners and drifting etc.

WITHOUT some confidence of sticking like glue due to aero and tyres working in their optimum 10 degree C range.

when there is such stickiness it allows the difference between drivers (and some degree cars) to be much smaller thus producing similar cornering speeds and dull racing.

i apologise at not being articulate, it is a complex matter.

 

I'm actually trying to find comparitive performance between a FF1600 and a 1.5l F1 car from the 1960s to see if there's much in it. There can't be much at all.

 

Can I ask where you arrived at the figure of 1.3 kW/kg power to weight ratio? Why is that significant?

 

So I can imagine that you're looking at cars which will be pretty fast down the straights but slow round corners, so MotoGP type performance is actually what we're looking at. I could accept that, but it would be a shame to remove crazy fast corning from what F1 is.

 

I've used the example of Indycar to show that you can have tremendously exciting racing with slicks and wings cars that are close in performance. It's about having a clever aero setup (and Indycar aero is not spec).

 

You're right, it is a complex issue, so unless you can articulate your ideas we can only guess as to what you're after.

[Beamer]

Hilarious thread. Keep them coming. Best comedy ever...

[johnnycomelately1]

I'm actually trying to find comparitive performance between a FF1600 and a 1.5l F1 car from the 1960s to see if there's much in it. There can't be much at all.

 

Can I ask where you arrived at the figure of 1.3 kW/kg power to weight ratio? Why is that significant?

 

So I can imagine that you're looking at cars which will be pretty fast down the straights but slow round corners, so MotoGP type performance is actually what we're looking at. I could accept that, but it would be a shame to remove crazy fast corning from what F1 is.

 

I've used the example of Indycar to show that you can have tremendously exciting racing with slicks and wings cars that are close in performance. It's about having a clever aero setup (and Indycar aero is not spec).

 

You're right, it is a complex issue, so unless you can articulate your ideas we can only guess as to what you're after.

from a previous post:-

 

50^oC RANGE-  for tyre operating RANGE

750KW to (say) 577KG = 1.3:1 power to weight ratio - MINIMUM

 

the "crazy fast cornering" is what prevents most differences and overtaking and dull racing, imho.

 

i am not looking at the power to weight ratio of the 60's F1 cars , but todays plus a bit WITH the cornering EXCITEMENT of the 60's, which came about from little aero and hard tyres.

[johnnycomelately1]

I'm actually trying to find comparitive performance between a FF1600 and a 1.5l F1 car from the 1960s to see if there's much in it. There can't be much at all.

 

Can I ask where you arrived at the figure of 1.3 kW/kg power to weight ratio? Why is that significant?

 

So I can imagine that you're looking at cars which will be pretty fast down the straights but slow round corners, so MotoGP type performance is actually what we're looking at. I could accept that, but it would be a shame to remove crazy fast corning from what F1 is.

 

I've used the example of Indycar to show that you can have tremendously exciting racing with slicks and wings cars that are close in performance. It's about having a clever aero setup (and Indycar aero is not spec).

 

You're right, it is a complex issue, so unless you can articulate your ideas we can only guess as to what you're after.

so what we would have is a larger speed spread over the lap.

currently the spread is fairly tight.

with some of my thoughts the straight speeds could be higher (i am aware of the effect on straight entry speeds) but the cornering much more slippery and consequently slower.

so, the actual lap times by comparison are somewhat irrelevant.

there would be very fast cars on the straights, sliding a lot in the corners ....sounds good to me

when cornering becomes hyper critical to numerous tyre parameters and aero balance etc the possibility of being in the park or off the reservation is very high.

and this is shown nearly every race where X team just cannot find the sweet spot (Red Bull eg)

this in itself contribute enormously to costs

[V8 Fireworks]

Mind sound odd, but the day the sport decided to be fast, was the day it went the wrong way.

 

 

All they have EVER done is to make them go slower by the rules...

 

Sliding skirts - banned

Ground effects - banned

Turbos - banned

Active suspension - banned

Engine size - decreased from 3500cc to 3000cc

Engine size - decreased again from 3000cc to 2400cc

Tyres - reduced in width 1992-3

Tyres - reduced in width again 1997

Tyres - grooves mandated 1998

Diffuser - reduced in size 2009

Double deck diffuser - banned

Exhaust blown diffuser - banned via mandated exhaust positions

Dual mass damper - banned

etc

 

(Aside from initially increasing engine from 1500cc to 3000cc during the 60s then to 3500cc during the 80s)

 

So you suppose the rules should have ALWAYS specified a 1500cc naturally aspirated engine between 1960 and 2015 onwards? 

[PayasYouRace]

from a previous post:-

 

50^oC RANGE-  for tyre operating RANGE

750KW to (say) 577KG = 1.3:1 power to weight ratio - MINIMUM

 

the "crazy fast cornering" is what prevents most differences and overtaking and dull racing, imho.

 

i am not looking at the power to weight ratio of the 60's F1 cars , but todays plus a bit WITH the cornering EXCITEMENT of the 60's, which came about from little aero and hard tyres.

 

Yes I did read that.

 

The 50C tyre operating window is probably fair enough. Sounds like something a tyre manufacturer could probably aim for. I'm not a tyre expert so I cannot comment further.

 

I asked where this number of 1.3 kW/kg came from. Why have you decided on that? That's what I want to know and I've only written it differently because I'm an engineer and the ratio 1.3:1 is meaningless without units.

 

The "crazy fast cornering" has been a feature of F1 for the vast majority of its existence. But as I've pointed out, it is not preventing overtaking and causing dull racing. I gave you the example of Indycar, which I remind you also has very close spread over the field.

 

So I don't see any need to essentially wind the clock back half a century to fix F1 when a few sensible changes would improve the sport immensely.

[johnnycomelately1]

Yes I did read that.

 

The 50C tyre operating window is probably fair enough. Sounds like something a tyre manufacturer could probably aim for. I'm not a tyre expert so I cannot comment further.

 

I asked where this number of 1.3 kW/kg came from. Why have you decided on that? That's what I want to know and I've only written it differently because I'm an engineer and the ratio 1.3:1 is meaningless without units.

 

The "crazy fast cornering" has been a feature of F1 for the vast majority of its existence. But as I've pointed out, it is not preventing overtaking and causing dull racing. I gave you the example of Indycar, which I remind you also has very close spread over the field.

 

So I don't see any need to essentially wind the clock back half a century to fix F1 when a few sensible changes would improve the sport immensely.

the power to weight ratio is nominal only but as a minimum it provides for cars in the 500kg to 600 kg range roughly(any lighter and they are skittish and too wind prone; then to produce the F1 speed 1000 hp seems about right, so fairly notional. these are all suggestions for constructive discussion.

the "spread" i referred to was between the slowest speed corners and the top speed.

i haven't watched indy cars for years so that is why i haven't engaged about them. i did note that the current aero changes have been controversial and may have caused some accidents.

 

so i am not winding the clock back as such, but addressing the areas that reduce overtaking,

anyway thanks for the comments.

[Frank Tuesday]

Welcome to formula blob! I don't think you've thought this through at all.

I prefer to think of it as Formula cigar. 

[johnnycomelately1]

from an interview with Stirling Moss:-

 

Formula 1’s situation today is rather challenging. More and more fans turn their back on the series and the current leaders have been suggesting measures to overcome the crisis. Lately, they have envisaged the comeback of more powerful engines, harder-to-drive cars and wider tyres in order to recreate that excitement and spirit of the early days. If you were to rule F1, what would you do?

I mean, obviously they are doing everything they can to improve the road holding. If they did away with downforce that would make an enormous difference. If they allow more horsepower that makes the cars more difficult to drive and that would sort the drivers out to some extent. But the top drivers now, people like Lewis Hamilton, they are extremely expert. Then again, I suppose in my days, the leading drivers were anyway.

[FerrariV12]

The bodywork must not have any concavity. That one rule just got rid of wings.

 

Not necessarily...

 

http://www.google.co...tents/US4240598

 

(great suggestion though, did get me thinking  )

[johnnycomelately1]

i'd like to ask everyone: if you had just one event to choose in your bucket list, what would it be?

an ice speedway on bikes, WRC in sardinia, motocross at unadilla, F1, motogp, sprintcar, top fuel cars, baja, bike dirt hillclimb, pikes peak, le mans, kartcross, world trials round, rallycross and petter solberg, NASCAR, extreme hill climb in Sweden, offshore powerboats, etc etc

[jimjimjeroo]

How about the winning constructor had to provide a customer car package the following year to 2 teams, 2nd place constructor to 1 team

[kamikaze1]

Remove the chicanes that were put in place after 94, that have no reason to be there anymore given the cars and speed.  

Bring back the T-car

No power steering

Manual gears

No Tyre Warmers

12-lap quali

Bring back refuelling, but not mandatory. 

6 man pit-stop teams. 

Bring back ground effects

Oh and active suspension. 

Get rid of DRS if the chicanes are lost. 

 

 

I have no idea what I'm talking about.  But No 1. should have been done years ago.   FIA brought in chicanes to slow down the cars, then brought in a raft of changes to slow the cars down even more, negating the need for chicanes?  Does that sound logical in anyone else's head?  And bring back the T-car.  But with a time penalty - grid penalty (would really **** Macca up ) 

Edited by kamikaze1, 11 July 2015 - 15:11.

[PayasYouRace]

Remove the chicanes that were put in place after 94, that have no reason to be there anymore given the cars and speed.  

 

I have no idea what I'm talking about.  But No 1. should have been done years ago.   FIA brought in chicanes to slow down the cars, then brought in a raft of changes to slow the cars down even more, negating the need for chicanes?  Does that sound logical in anyone else's head?

 

The current cars are faster than those of early 1994. At Interlagos, the only circuit which is unchanged since then, the Marussias were 4s faster than Senna's pole position from 1994 (and that was with quafifying settings and all that jazz).

 

But besides, most of the chicanes and other modifications that were put in back then have disappeared. The temporary chicanes at Barcelona, Montreal and Spa were all done away with after a year or two. The new chicanes at Estoril and Jerez still exists, but the circuits are no longer on the calendar. The changes to Imola are moot for the same reason. Silverstone had many changes made, Copse, Stowe, Abbey, Priory and Brooklands. All were undone by 1997 bar Abbey, and now that chicane is gone too with the new layout.

 

Only the final sector at Barcelona is still sullied by chicanes, and those were put in a decade after 1994. Current F1 is largely chicane free, bar where runoff can't be increased.

 

 

Bring back refuelling, but not mandatory. 

 

 

Refuelling was never mandatory, but as soon as it's allowed it becomes the fastest way to complete a race distance. However the vast majority in F1 can recognise how it adversely affects good racing.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 11 July 2015 - 17:28.

[johnnycomelately1]

very much agree about chicanes, nasty useless things

[Wuzak]

so what we would have is a larger speed spread over the lap.

currently the spread is fairly tight.

with some of my thoughts the straight speeds could be higher (i am aware of the effect on straight entry speeds) but the cornering much more slippery and consequently slower.

so, the actual lap times by comparison are somewhat irrelevant.

there would be very fast cars on the straights, sliding a lot in the corners ....sounds good to me

when cornering becomes hyper critical to numerous tyre parameters and aero balance etc the possibility of being in the park or off the reservation is very high.

and this is shown nearly every race where X team just cannot find the sweet spot (Red Bull eg)

this in itself contribute enormously to costs

 

Lets look at the last races before wings were introduced in 1967.

 

South Africa 

1. Rodriguez

2. Love +26.4s

3. Surtees +1 lap

4. Hulme. +2 laps

5. Anderson +2 laps

6. Brabham +4 laps

 

 

6 cars finish from 18 starters

 

 

Monaco

1. Hulme

2. G.Hill  +1 lap

3. Amon +2 lpas

4. McLaren + 3 laps

5. Rodriquez + 4 laps

6. Spence + 4 laps

 

6 cars finished out of 16 starters

 

 

Netherlands

1. Clark

2. Brabham +23.6s

3. Hulme +25.7s

4. Amon +27.3s

5. Parkes +1 lap

6. Scarfiotti +1 lap

7. Irwin +2 laps

 

10 finish from 17 starters

 

 

Belgium

1. Gurney

2. Stewart +1m03s

3. Amon +1m40s

4. Rindt +2m14s

5. Spence +1 lap

6. Clark +1 lap (nearly 1 minute behind Spence)

 

10 cars finish from 18 starters

 

 

France

1. Brabham

2. Hulme + 49.5s

3. Stewart + 1 lap

4. Siffert +3 laps

5. Irwin +4 laps (not running at end)

6. Rodriguez +4 laps

 

6 finish from 15 starters

 

 

Great Britain

1. Clark

2. Hulme +12.8s

3. Amon +16.6s

4. Brabham +21.8s

5. Rodriguez + 1 lap

6. Surtees + 2 laps

 

10 finish from 18 starters

 

 

Germany

1. Hulme 

2. Brabham +38.5s

3. Amon +39.0s (very close race for 2nd)

4. Surtees +2m25.7s

5. Bonnier +8m42.1s

6. Ligier +1 lap

 

8 finish from 17 starters

 

 

Canada

1. Brabham

2. Hulme +1m01.7s

3. Gurney +1 lap

4. G.Hill +2 laps

5. Spence +3 laps

6. Amon +3 laps

 

As Canada is probably the closest to the current circuit, the fastest lap was 1m23.1s by Clark, the next being Hulme and Hill on 1m24.0s.

 

11 finished from 17 starters.

 

 

Italy

1. Surtees

2. Brabham +0,2s (mus thave been a classic streamlining battle)

3. Clark +23.1s

4. Rindt +56.6s

5. Spence + 1 lap

6. Ickx + 2 laps

 

7 finish from 18 starters. Fastest lap, Clark 1m28.5s (no chicanes, remember)

 

 

USA

1. Clark

2. G.Hill +6.3s

3. Hulme +1 lap

4. Siffert +2 laps

5. Brabham +4 laps

6. Bonnier +7 laps

 

7 finish from 18 starters

 

 

Mexico

1. Clark

2. Brabham +1m25.4s

3. Hulme +1 lap

4. Surtees + 1 lap

5. Spence + 2laps

6. Rodriguez + 2 laps

 

12 finish from 18 starters.

 

For all the rose coloured glasses, races before wings tended to be as strung out as now, if not more, with one or two notable exceptions.

[Wuzak]

Control ECU with none of the traction control ABS etc they all have. A proper manual H pattern box and a clutch pedal. Flat bottom cars with no more than 3 elements in each wing.Wider and harder tyres.

It could be done but will not. They are too busy with their racing Prius's with all the electronic gadgets.

It would be interesting to see who could handle a simple car without the electronics

 

• They have a control ECU. It is manufactured by McLaren electronics, or whatever their name is, and has been supplied since 2010/11? The current ECU was introduced in 2013 with extra functions to cope with the added PU functions.
• No team runs traction control
• There is no anti-lock braking
• They have a clutch paddle. Actually two. One of them will be removed from Belgium
• Rear wing is currently limited to 2 elements, which makes it less efficient (potentially) than one with 3. 
• They have a stepped bottom car which would have less downforce than a flat bottom car.
• They are currently running harder tyres, and only a fw teams can make them work. Well, one really.
• They all could handle a simple car without electronics. They would just go slower.

Edited by Wuzak, 12 July 2015 - 04:51.

[johnnycomelately1]

So from what I can tell you want skinny tyres, no aero, essentially a 60's F1 car but comparable speeds to today? Genuine question.

mat13, from a previous post:

 

1. minimum power to weight ratio of 1.3:1
2. maximum average ground pressure of x
3. minimum tyre operating temperature band of 50^oC
4. maximum fuel limit as it currently stands
5. maximum rev limit

that power to weight ratio may be a little high if there was no downforce to enable traction

 

essentially, the 60's cars with a higher power and commensurate tyre size; aero only for not flying and low drag; all modern safety aspects; modern brakes but with bigger operating temperature band

so therefore most of the stuff that has been learnt can be applied.

gives us cars that have to be driven with finesse in the corners.

dropping aero will reduce costs immensely.

 

i hope this describes what i see could provide exciting racing

[johnnycomelately1]

mat13,

i made a mistake there.

originally i used the 60's cars to demonstrate good, exciting racing. thats where the advocacy of the 60's cars ends.

so a better way to describe it would be the current cars with aero as described. big operating temperature BAND tyres that last the length of the race (its a sad indictment we need pit stops to add interest)

i also believe to restrictive regulations are killing off racing, but thats another subject

[johnnycomelately1]

 

Lets look at the last races before wings were introduced in 1967.

 

South Africa 

1. Rodriguez

2. Love +26.4s

3. Surtees +1 lap

4. Hulme. +2 laps

5. Anderson +2 laps

6. Brabham +4 laps

 

 

6 cars finish from 18 starters

 

 

Monaco

1. Hulme

2. G.Hill  +1 lap

3. Amon +2 lpas

4. McLaren + 3 laps

5. Rodriquez + 4 laps

6. Spence + 4 laps

 

6 cars finished out of 16 starters

 

 

Netherlands

1. Clark

2. Brabham +23.6s

3. Hulme +25.7s

4. Amon +27.3s

5. Parkes +1 lap

6. Scarfiotti +1 lap

7. Irwin +2 laps

 

10 finish from 17 starters

 

 

Belgium

1. Gurney

2. Stewart +1m03s

3. Amon +1m40s

4. Rindt +2m14s

5. Spence +1 lap

6. Clark +1 lap (nearly 1 minute behind Spence)

 

10 cars finish from 18 starters

 

 

France

1. Brabham

2. Hulme + 49.5s

3. Stewart + 1 lap

4. Siffert +3 laps

5. Irwin +4 laps (not running at end)

6. Rodriguez +4 laps

 

6 finish from 15 starters

 

 

Great Britain

1. Clark

2. Hulme +12.8s

3. Amon +16.6s

4. Brabham +21.8s

5. Rodriguez + 1 lap

6. Surtees + 2 laps

 

10 finish from 18 starters

 

 

Germany

1. Hulme 

2. Brabham +38.5s

3. Amon +39.0s (very close race for 2nd)

4. Surtees +2m25.7s

5. Bonnier +8m42.1s

6. Ligier +1 lap

 

8 finish from 17 starters

 

 

Canada

1. Brabham

2. Hulme +1m01.7s

3. Gurney +1 lap

4. G.Hill +2 laps

5. Spence +3 laps

6. Amon +3 laps

 

As Canada is probably the closest to the current circuit, the fastest lap was 1m23.1s by Clark, the next being Hulme and Hill on 1m24.0s.

 

11 finished from 17 starters.

 

 

Italy

1. Surtees

2. Brabham +0,2s (mus thave been a classic streamlining battle)

3. Clark +23.1s

4. Rindt +56.6s

5. Spence + 1 lap

6. Ickx + 2 laps

 

7 finish from 18 starters. Fastest lap, Clark 1m28.5s (no chicanes, remember)

 

 

USA

1. Clark

2. G.Hill +6.3s

3. Hulme +1 lap

4. Siffert +2 laps

5. Brabham +4 laps

6. Bonnier +7 laps

 

7 finish from 18 starters

 

 

Mexico

1. Clark

2. Brabham +1m25.4s

3. Hulme +1 lap

4. Surtees + 1 lap

5. Spence + 2laps

6. Rodriguez + 2 laps

 

12 finish from 18 starters.

 

For all the rose coloured glasses, races before wings tended to be as strung out as now, if not more, with one or two notable exceptions.

 

the racing was exciting. that cannot be argued against.

the speed spread i referred to was between the slowest corner speed and the highest straight speed, that range indicates the corners are a place to drive with finesses and overtake much more often

[ToxicEnviroment]

The important thing would be, IMHO, to give all rule making power to FIA, FOM to cease to exist, TV rights to be free, technical rules to be open (bar the security features: crash test, roll over bars, etc.).

The sport needs strong decommercialization (not just F1), much less money to be involved.

Race organizers should finance events from tickets and trackside advertising, pay start and prize money and that's it. All the European races, incl. French and German GP should be kept, calendar slimmed down to 16 races.

Then, open the technical rules almost completely, don't restrict tyres or testing in any way. Wing size can be limited in just a few well-worded sentences, limit the cubic capacity but leave the layouts and number of cylinders free to choose....a bit like in 1989.

If there is less money to earn, there will be also less to spend so this balance could self-regulate. Open the grid to all cars (customer cars, 3rd cars) that confirm to regulations, 26 fastest can start the race.

If that makes all the factory teams to leave, so be it, it doesn't matter.

Sounds like 1989

BUT. In real 1989 Ferrari went sequential and that spiced up things for 1990. Than Willams went all active plus sequential and that spiced up things for 1991

Capisci?! Innovation. You cannot innovate sequential gearbox. You cannot innovate active suspension. Why? Because it's already innovated.

So if you want innovation you have F1 2015 style.

If you want 1989 without innovation you have GP2

Actually, GP2 with professional drivers would be really really cool thing.

I never watch GP2 because I cannot "connect" myself with drivers.

So something like NASCAR's Busch series where cup drivers compete occasionally would be great.

It would add interest for us fans. And it would add challenge for the new drivers to prove themselves against established drivers.

[Dolph]

So something like NASCAR's Busch series where cup drivers compete occasionally would be great.

 

 

I'd like to see that as well. Sort of like F1 drivers competing in F2 in the old times.