31 replies to this topic

[Ijsman]

Deserves its own thread IMO, I think that a lot of people here will agree with this.

 

The poll included is only about "Part 3: Proposed solutions", not about the other 2 articles. If you selected a poll option which includes "for the most part", please elaborate what parts you do and don't agree with. Others are free to discuss also ofcourse. 

 

Part 1: Problems in philosophy

http://www.motorspor...losophy-667031/

 

Part 2: Identifying key issues

http://www.motorspor...-issues-667033/

 

Part 3: Proposed solutions

http://www.motorspor...lutions-667034/

 

[Marklar]

There is nothing to disagree with.

Im not sure if ALL of his proposals would actually improve the racing or if they are realistic, but certainly it is not worse than what we have now. The whole concept he is proposing is actually significantly better than that what we have now.

[statman]

I must admit, I'm not technically gifted enough to debate the concepts of downforce, drag, grip etc, but I like his story. Especially regarding the engine section.

 

And I know, people will say green is the future and we have to move forward etc. but for me personally F1 is not about green and saving. It's about speed, racing, and yes, the element of danger. It's fine to be environmental friendly, and F1 has done it's fair share over the years but this whole notion of transforming F1 into some kind of eco racing class is making me sick.

 

Knowing F1 and the players involved though, I think this piece by Johansson is going to be ignored...

[BuddyHolly]

Voted I agree, the guy speaks a lot of sense.

[7MGTEsup]

Some good ideas there, especially taking the teams out of the rule making process. Wider cars wider tyres and smaller wings is a good way to go.

[Ross Stonefeld]

He does an excellent job of identifying the problems, a much weaker job on solutions. 

 

A lot of it falls too close to that "hey man, just let them innovate" argument.

 

Ooookay. How would that work, exactly? 

[Anders Torp]

He makes sense. That's pretty much what's needed.

[Nemo1965]

This is the most interesting part, IMHO:

 

Set a fixed limit on the level of downforce – say 2000lbs. A current F1 car produces 3500-3700lbs based on information I have so that's a decrease of something like 40 percent. It will be very easy to monitor downforce levels through the strain gauges on the push/pullrods on the suspension, which can then be fed directly into the car's ECU.

The focus will shift to other areas to create grip. In time, grip will be back to current levels but mostly through increased mechanical grip and better tyres.

 

Remember that the FIA suggested allowing active cars? That would have been a method for the FIA to measure and control ride-height and hence down-force. This idea is better...

[Otaku]

He complains about DRS and its "artificial nature" and then proposes a push to pass... contradictory.

 

Anyways, I mostly agree with what he proposes, except some specific things (like that ptp, and standard front wing), I like the main idea.

Edited by Otaku, 19 January 2016 - 17:23.

[Marklar]

A push to pass is not really artificial because everyone has the same anount available

[Myrvold]

Yup. And you can use ptp to defend as well as pass

[Pingguest]

I agree for most part but I disagree with the idea of wider tires and the standardisation of parts.

[Nonesuch]

I don't follow Johansson's obsession with longer braking distances, but it's always interesting to read a comprehensive consideration from someone with an insider view.

 

A push to pass is not really artificial because everyone has the same anount available

 

That's exactly what makes it artificial. Rather than some standardized 'push to pass' system, the OT-button on steering wheels is a temporary mode to aid overtaking, as determined by the teams. Teams determine how to balance the normal and OT-modes, teams determine what OT-mode does, and teams determine how often they feel it is safe to use it. The best team will have the best mix and come out on top; that's what competition is all about.

[Fastcake]

He does an excellent job of identifying the problems, a much weaker job on solutions. 

 

A lot of it falls too close to that "hey man, just let them innovate" argument.

 

Ooookay. How would that work, exactly? 

 

Or the more general "I don't know understand the problem, but they'll figure out the solution" argument.

 

I mean, what exactly would slower pit stops achieve?

[Marklar]

Or the more general "I don't know understand the problem, but they'll figure out the solution" argument.

 

I mean, what exactly would slower pit stops achieve?

 

Slower pitstops are encouraging the teams to not stop and therefore to try to strech the stint. Different strategies are stil possible because you can stil pit and attack with fresh tyres while others dont.

 

Why would that be a good idea? In my opinion it is a good idea if the overtaking problem would be solved first. You are putting the whole action on track and it is much easier for the fan to follow.

[tormave]

This is the most interesting part, IMHO:

 

Set a fixed limit on the level of downforce – say 2000lbs. A current F1 car produces 3500-3700lbs based on information I have so that's a decrease of something like 40 percent. It will be very easy to monitor downforce levels through the strain gauges on the push/pullrods on the suspension, which can then be fed directly into the car's ECU.

The focus will shift to other areas to create grip. In time, grip will be back to current levels but mostly through increased mechanical grip and better tyres.

 

Remember that the FIA suggested allowing active cars? That would have been a method for the FIA to measure and control ride-height and hence down-force. This idea is better...

 

Actually what Johansson proposes is not a new solution at all, it was seriously proposed into the rules some time, maybe 10 years back? Back then the test would've been to press the car down with a force equivalent to the max downforce + some some small static amount. If the car didn't bottom out, you didn't pass scrutineering and could not race. Very simple, and impossible to find a loophole around. I don't know why this didn't make it to the final rules package, but I was very disappointed when it wasn't there.

[Nemo1965]

Actually what Johansson proposes is not a new solution at all, it was seriously proposed into the rules some time, maybe 10 years back? Back then the test would've been to press the car down with a force equivalent to the max downforce + some some small static amount. If the car didn't bottom out, you didn't pass scrutineering and could not race. Very simple, and impossible to find a loophole around. I don't know why this didn't make it to the final rules package, but I was very disappointed when it wasn't there.

 

Nice post. But... how can pressing the car with force while it is static (I presume) measure how much aerodynamic down-force is produced while the car is pressed through the air going 330 per hour?

 

No, I fear that this way of measuring would have the same deficit as the test for flexible front wings. The stewards put an elephant (proverbially) on the wing in the pits, it won't budge. And we all can see the wing is still flexing on the track.

 

I think Johanssons idea would be better, combined with a ride-height mandated by the FIA - which could be changed every race for safety reasons. That would also mean you could start more easily with rain-races, because you could 'force' the teams to make the car ride really high.

[FPV GTHO]

So how are these load sensors supposed to work on a bumpy track vs a smooth track?

I've said it before but F1 can't stand to nerf the aero when there's too many feeder series they have no control over, who will be all to happy to look faster such as Super Formula in Japan.

[Kalmake]

 

Nice post. But... how can pressing the car with force while it is static (I presume) measure how much aerodynamic down-force is produced while the car is pressed through the air going 330 per hour?

It doesn't. You will just bottom out on the fast straights if you add too much down force so you lose speed/wear the plank.

 

I think this rule would have teams pushing the limit of bottoming very hard and that would create safety/DQ issues. Not least because tire pressures play a role in ride height and suspension.

[JeePee]

So how are these load sensors supposed to work on a bumpy track vs a smooth track?

If only we still had bumpy tracks...

[Kalmake]

I wonder where he wants to the top speeds to be when he is calling for an increase... 400? Maybe he hasn't actually watched the sport since V8s.

[maximilian]

Put Johansson in charge NOW!!

[DrProzac]

Nice read, he has some good points and ideas, some very good and I can agree with many of them. But not with all.

 

I'm not sold on the downforce reduction philosophy though. We already have lower single seaters series with cars that would qualify higher than some F1 ones. Not to mention prototypes. I'm not sure one can just cut downforce by half and hope that wider tires and more power will compensate it in time. F1 cars have to remain the fasters race cars in the world, or they won't be Formula 1 any more.

 

IMHO proper, modern ground effects (much more resistant to dirty air AFAIK) paired with then possible minimization of front wing's role (so less susceptibility and les diry air produced) could be a better idea to deal with the problem on the aero side without such drastic downforce reduction. Also, better L/D ratio so more straight line speed. Add to this more mechanical grip, more powerful engines etc.

On other hand it could be tricky to control the aero development race. But with such effective way of generating they wouldn't be forced to design such complicated elements just to make the car work (feed the diffuser, seal the underbody etc), and the front wing may be much more restricted than it is now.

 

I'm not sure it would be that easy to monitor a downforce limit. On the straights, maybe, but in corners where it matters and there's lots of load on the suspension? In a worst case scenario we could have cars designed to have a different aero characteristic when the downfroce is measured, and different in the corners or under braking. Active or moveable aero is banned, so this would require some ingenious vortex structures or something similar, which would make the cars even more prone to wake. Granted it would probably not be very likely to happen.

 

Making pitsops longer to make the races more interesting is artificial. And it would promote long, slow stint strategies (so he contradicts himself a bit).

 

I also don't like the idea of making crucial parts of F1 cars like front wings standardized. But I can agree that there are areas where it can be done.

[Ijsman]

Statman: "I must admit, I'm not technically gifted enough to debate the concepts of downforce, drag, grip etc, but I like his story. 

...

Knowing F1 and the players involved though, I think this piece by Johansson is going to be ignored..."

 

That is one of the reasons I made a poll for it, to see how many people like his ideas and hope some employees of FOM/teams watch this forum. And it seems that a lot of people do (37 like his ideas, 3 dislike almost all of his ideas, and 3 don't know). If there only was a way for FOM and the teams to listen to Stefan, and not let their self-interest get in the way...

Edited by Ijsman, 22 January 2016 - 07:33.

[AustinF1]

I must admit, I'm not technically gifted enough to debate the concepts of downforce, drag, grip etc, but I like his story. Especially regarding the engine section.

 

And I know, people will say green is the future and we have to move forward etc. but for me personally F1 is not about green and saving. It's about speed, racing, and yes, the element of danger. It's fine to be environmental friendly, and F1 has done it's fair share over the years but this whole notion of transforming F1 into some kind of eco racing class is making me sick.

 

Knowing F1 and the players involved though, I think this piece by Johansson is going to be ignored...

Sean...is that you?

[AustinF1]

That is one of the reasons I made a poll for it, to see how many people like his ideas and hope some employees of FOM/teams watch this forum. And it seems that a lot of people do (37 like his ideas, 3 dislike almost all of his ideas, and 3 don't know). If there only was a way for FOM and the teams to listen to Stefan, and not let their self-interest get in the way...

Yeah I posted this in another thread and it got a little response, but nothing overwhelming. I posted it on our FB page and got a pretty decent response. 

 

Personally I think it was as comprehensive and coherent a piece as I've seen regarding what's wrong with F1 and what needs to be done to fix it. Kudos to Mr. Johansson.

[GSiebert]

I've said it before but F1 can't stand to nerf the aero when there's too many feeder series they have no control over, who will be all to happy to look faster such as Super Formula in Japan.

That's why he says at the beginning that all forms of car racing are concerned.

[chrisPB15]

Sadly I can't see his ideas being taken on board, it involves a complete overhaul for which the money men arnt going to be comfortable with. He's pretty much invented a new Formula ready for when F1 destroys itself. The next generation of motorsport fans, will be watching and participating themselves in Virtual Reality races.

[Hans V]

I'm all for what Stefan is saying, have been advocating pretty much the same for the last 15+ years and this is in accordance eith what Gary Anderson and Gordon Murray are proposing.

Aerodynamics are ruining racing and several huge fortunes are spent on aero each year on something that is irrelevant to anything outside F1. A paradox to use enormous resources on something that only ruins the product/show/racing/interest. I also agree about pit stops as fewer people are involved. It saves money and opens up stratecic choices. And it would be more fun - I find NASCAR pitstops more impressive than F1.

[ANF]

In the end I voted totally agree. Parts 1 and 2 in the series are absolutely spot on. And although I'm not really in favour of a tyre war, maybe that's the one thing that could make Pirelli leave the sport or at least abandon their thermal degradation philosophy. I'm not a fan of having a standard front wing either, but Johansson makes a good case for introducing one. Increased engine power? Perhaps that would be necessary to keep the current top speeds with less efficient aero and bigger tyres. I would love to see his formula in action and see if it actually works!

[HP]

Don't agree with everything.

 

As to aerodynamics. I still think ground effect are the way to go, and at least get rid of front wing altogether. Ground effects were deemed to be too dangerous. This policing seemed to ignore the fact that engineers can come with solutions to the problems identified.

[AustinF1]

Sadly I can't see his ideas being taken on board, it involves a complete overhaul for which the money men arnt going to be comfortable with. He's pretty much invented a new Formula ready for when F1 destroys itself. The next generation of motorsport fans, will be watching and participating themselves in Virtual Reality races.

...Or for 2020 when the commercial agreements and the commitment to run the current PU formula run out. 

 

I think for F1 to get "right" again, they're gonna just have to burn it all down and start again at ground zero, as you allude to. This tinkering isn't working. As some have already stated, F1 needs a revolution to get some new life into it.