109 replies to this topic

[ardbeg]

If you reduce downforce further they will be slower than GP2.    Downforce is the main thing that makes an F1 car fast around a circuit.

Really? I always thought power and tyres had a pretty big impact on performance. 
Remember, we are not talking about removing downforce here. It is about the ratio between aero and mechanical grip that is in question. If you increase aero, you can not also increase power and mechanical grip.

[ANF]

Why should F1 driver have lower requirement than fighter pilot?
 
There are less F1 drivers than fighter pilots!  F1 drivers are supposed to be the best of the best. Very special skills and training.
 
 If any 15 year old go-karter or amateur racer can jump in an F1 car and lap it easily than that is ridiculous IMO.

Are you saying that just about any fighter pilot can jump in an F1 car and lap it easily?

[travbrad]

 

Hence, to find a durable solution, the FIA should find write rules in such way that cars tend to diverge instead of converge, allowing cars to find their sweet spot at different stages of the races and even at different stages of a lap.

 

Yeah I agree that is another thing they should change.  If the cars have exactly the same setup going into the race as they do in qualifying you usually aren't going to see cars diverging much.  If they allowed setup changes between quali and the race there would be certain cars that were faster in qualifying or faster in the race.  I'm not in favor of reverse grids because it's too artificial but they should at least be able to change setups on their own cars.

 

On a related note I think they should also scrap the "use both compounds" rule and having to start the race on used tyres.  Greatly restricting the teams/drivers choice of viable strategies during a race means almost everyone runs the same tyre strategies so you don't get enough periods in a race where one car is on older tyres and one is on newer tyres due to them being on different strategies.  That was one of the problems with the refueling era of F1 too, but for some reason they tried to replicate it with these tyre rules again forcing everyone onto similar strategies.

Edited by travbrad, 04 February 2016 - 17:17.

[THEWALL]

Depends. As a blind objective per se, no. As a way to try to improve racing, yes. However, in general, the more downforce, the more difficult it is to overtake so even if they increase it via ground effects and not Rococo front wings, they'd still have to be careful with increasing it too much. Overall, I'd rather see a decrease than an increase though. 

[Clatter]

Are you saying that just about any fighter pilot can jump in an F1 car and lap it easily?

Actually I'd say any fighter pilot could drive a lap easily, but I doubt many of the drivers could jump into the cockpit and fly a fighter jet round a simply circuit of an airfield. 

[ardbeg]

Actually I'd say any fighter pilot could drive a lap easily, but I doubt many of the drivers could jump into the cockpit and fly a fighter jet round a simply circuit of an airfield. 

I think you need to check that video f Niki Lauda testing the Jaguar F1 some years ago
But yes, sure, they would get around the track in seconds gear. 

[ANF]

Actually I'd say any fighter pilot could drive a lap easily, but I doubt many of the drivers could jump into the cockpit and fly a fighter jet round a simply circuit of an airfield.

They would hardly be setting competitive lap times though, would they?

Anyway, I like to see drivers actually having to drive the car. And in that regard I prefer the 2015 (or 1997) cars to, for example, the 2011 Red Bull which was pretty much on rails through the corners. Being on rails is faster and probably more physically challenging (at least when you're doing it for close to two hours) but it's not really about driving, is it? So I'm not sure the right thing to do is to add more downforce. I'd say bring in better tyres that allow more speed to be carried through corners and more power to be applied out of them. And if the drivers want a physical challenge, then start by banning power steering, which I think would make driving the cars a little more challenging as well.

[ardbeg]

They would hardly be setting competitive lap times though, would they?

Anyway, I like to see drivers actually having to drive the car. And in that regard I prefer the 2015 (or 1997) cars to, for example, the 2011 Red Bull which was pretty much on rails through the corners. Being on rails is faster and probably more physically challenging (at least when you're doing it for close to two hours) but it's not really about driving, is it? So I'm not sure the right thing to do is to add more downforce. I'd say bring in better tyres that allow more speed to be carried through corners and more power to be applied out of them. And if the drivers want a physical challenge, then start by banning power steering, which I think would make driving the cars a little more challenging as well.

 

Personally I think I high downforce vehicle demands more from a driver in terms of precision. A car that moves around more is automatically more forgiving, it works within a bigger area of errors. A high downforce rails car will not forgive you, each little deviation from the ideal will cost more than it would in a car that accept a bit of drifting. That said, it is not only downforce that makes a car lose it's **** if it gets a bit sideways. 

 

Cars that appear to be on rails looks boring because we can not see that it is on the limit.

Edited by ardbeg, 04 February 2016 - 21:56.

[Clatter]

They would hardly be setting competitive lap times though, would they?

Anyway, I like to see drivers actually having to drive the car. And in that regard I prefer the 2015 (or 1997) cars to, for example, the 2011 Red Bull which was pretty much on rails through the corners. Being on rails is faster and probably more physically challenging (at least when you're doing it for close to two hours) but it's not really about driving, is it? So I'm not sure the right thing to do is to add more downforce. I'd say bring in better tyres that allow more speed to be carried through corners and more power to be applied out of them. And if the drivers want a physical challenge, then start by banning power steering, which I think would make driving the cars a little more challenging as well.

Nope, but they would be able to do a reasonably high speed circuit, as would most people who can drive a car. 

[Pingguest]

Yeah I agree that is another thing they should change.  If the cars have exactly the same setup going into the race as they do in qualifying you usually aren't going to see cars diverging much.  If they allowed setup changes between quali and the race there would be certain cars that were faster in qualifying or faster in the race.  I'm not in favor of reverse grids because it's too artificial but they should at least be able to change setups on their own cars.
 
On a related note I think they should also scrap the "use both compounds" rule and having to start the race on used tyres.  Greatly restricting the teams/drivers choice of viable strategies during a race means almost everyone runs the same tyre strategies so you don't get enough periods in a race where one car is on older tyres and one is on newer tyres due to them being on different strategies.  That was one of the problems with the refueling era of F1 too, but for some reason they tried to replicate it with these tyre rules again forcing everyone onto similar strategies.

Regarding the tires, I advocate the return of a tire war and the banning of pit stops altogether. This would contribute to cars finding their sweet spots at different stages of the race with drivers having a lot of influence.