Jump to content


Photo

Alain Prost interview on BBC Monday 3 March 23:20


  • Please log in to reply
135 replies to this topic

#101 denthierry

denthierry
  • Member

  • 1,281 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 06 March 2008 - 15:09

Originally posted by Timstr11
So verybody runs steel brakes. Everybody has to brake earlier, making longer braking distances....How will that affect racing?
In my opinion, the only effect it will have is slow down the cars.


I 'm affraid i disagree with that statement. longer braking distances give more opportunities for a better (or faster or ballsier) pilot, to try and out-manoeuvre the car in front of him.
On the opposite, the lesser gifted driver in front will spend more time on his braking manoeuvre and therefor be more prone to errors.

IMHO, F1 today is too much full throttle, full baking, full throtlle again etc.. taking away too many opportunities for a weaker driver to mess up and for a better driver to show his skills or consistency over a race distance...

Advertisement

#102 lukywill

lukywill
  • Member

  • 6,660 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 06 March 2008 - 18:28

Originally posted by RSNS
Having watched the interview, I think Prost's main point is that today's races are a sprint: one must be fast, continuously fast. The car will not break, you will have to refuel every 20 laps or so and that's it: whoever gets the first corner or is faster in the laps surrounding a pitstop wins.

Not everybody likes this kind of racing. During Prost's life as a F1 driver, strategy was required: when to push and for how long, when to spare the care, when to spare the tires.

This gave racing rhythm - a kind of structure in the sense that there were very distinctive parts of in a given race.

Younger people tend to like it fast: in many cases with music, the drummer is always at the fullest, there is just pushing. Perhaps we, old timers, are missing the beauty of that kind of thing.

We prefer more complex racing, strategy, overtaking, uncertainty. I would have thought that everybody would prefer a complex race (RACE, mind you, not car) to a simple one, but apparently this is not so.

There are many more ingredients missing: a certain amount of danger and experience: one had to know how to handle a race (let alone a car). Today if you have an accident chances are that you'll get away with it (I actually prefer it this way, but it is true that races are less impressive).

Most modern circuits themselves are mostly what we considered Mickey Mouse circuits. Flat, straight-corner-straight, many 'pedal to the metal' bends (actually bent straights). However, the cars are fast as hell, and perhaps our generation does not see that the younger fans actually like it that way: fast over difficult.

This is a Devil's advocate post. But I am trying to figure out why youngsters are so keen on defending contemporary F1 while the old timers, almost to a man, find it boring (or woman).


great reading from you. thanks :up:

#103 MONTOYASPEED

MONTOYASPEED
  • Member

  • 8,097 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 06 March 2008 - 18:43

Originally posted by Hacklerf
Prost "A new driver with very little experience can come in to Formula One and drive very quickly. It's just like playing on a PlayStation"

Spot on Prost, spot on


Why don't you do it then?

#104 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,237 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 07 March 2008 - 07:37

Originally posted by StefanV
I think the issue with steel brakes and weight is partly that much of the extra weight is the wheel itself. That means that in an impact, it is harder to keep the wheels attached to the car and a loose wheel is a dangerous thing.

The brakes aren't part of the wheel anyway. When they change the wheel, the brakes don't leave the car.

And if wheels are heavier, then they increase the strength of the location devices which prevent the wheels leaving the body.

Toyota's hybrid Supra race car has two motor/gernerators in the front wheels. Power is stored via capacitor, and I think the generator switches to motor when the driver wants to used the stored power. They add some weight - but the car seems to have passed safety.

Also several of the F1 cars use hub cap style aero devices on their wheels now - they have not been restricted despite adding weight, and they would stay attached to the wheel in an accident.




#105 StefanV

StefanV
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 07 March 2008 - 08:20

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
The brakes aren't part of the wheel anyway. When they change the wheel, the brakes don't leave the car.

And if wheels are heavier, then they increase the strength of the location devices which prevent the wheels leaving the body.

Toyota's hybrid Supra race car has two motor/gernerators in the front wheels. Power is stored via capacitor, and I think the generator switches to motor when the driver wants to used the stored power. They add some weight - but the car seems to have passed safety.

Also several of the F1 cars use hub cap style aero devices on their wheels now - they have not been restricted despite adding weight, and they would stay attached to the wheel in an accident.


You know what I mean. When a wheel is detached from the car in an accident it will not be because the wheel nut is removed. The whole package with brakes and all will come loose. As for the hub caps, how much do you think they weigh?
I bet you mail can them as post cards as with a normal stamp.

But I would still like them to use steel brakes. The carbon brakes temperature holding is also a safety issue during SC and rain. Quite a few accidents and much more aggravation have been caused by drivers heating their brakes.

I am not sure about what more benefits carbon brakes give apart from longer life span, better consistency and lower weight.

Negatives, as I see it:
-Expensive production
-Plenty of carbon dust for the pit crew to inhale
-Consistent behaviour in race conditions remove a factor in strategy
-The high temperature needed for them to work causes a lot of problem if cars have to go slowly.

#106 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,237 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 07 March 2008 - 08:36

Originally posted by StefanV

Negatives, as I see it:



-Expensive production - Agreed.
-Plenty of carbon dust for the pit crew to inhale - Not a proper issue IMO. :lol:
-Consistent behaviour in race conditions remove a factor in strategy - Depends on how a highly developed steel system eventually works.
-The high temperature needed for them to work causes a lot of problem if cars have to go slowly. - IMO one brake application would bring them up to temperature - tyres are more of an issue anyway (keepting the tyres up to temp)

One benefit of carbon is that they are a mature tech. Although the air streams around them do not seem to be. However, there are only three manufacturers used, with one much more popular, and the there is not competitive advantage in the brakes anymore. With steel brakes, a lot of money would be spent trying to get them as good as the carbon brakes were, that is a negative IMO.

I still think lowering downforce is a better way - with less downforce, the cars will hit a higher speed on the main straight (as long as their slower entry speed allows it) and then they will have to brake a lot earlier because with less downforce the car will take longer to stop, and the car will have to have a slower entry speed because of the lower downforce.

Lower downforce will also more facilitate draughting on the main straight.

The problem is the FIA haven't come up with a measurement device to ensure downforce maximums are not exceeded. There should be such technologies available IMO - maybe they should standardize the gas in the tyres, and standardize the pressure too, and then measure the operating pressure in the tyres at a certain speed on the main straight. I presume the downforce would increase the pressure of the tyre. So the FIA could simply prescribe a maximum tyre pressure allowed during the race. And maybe BS would have to seal the tyres in the factory with air and a leakless technology? And differing downforce maximums could be prescribed for different tracks, with Monte Carlo having the highest level for instance.

Or maybe they could put a thermocouple on each wheel bearing, in order to measure the maximum downforce of the car. Other solutions could no doubt be found.

Or have the cars drive over a portable weigh bridge on the main straight, with a maximum downforce - weight - allowed. If a car exceeded it, they have to slow the car down on the main straight, or suffer stop and go penalties!

I don't know why they have not done something like that. The problem with F1 is the excessive downforce, and the problem of loosing downforce when close behind a car.

And stop the wings and body flexing as well!

#107 Rosemayer

Rosemayer
  • Member

  • 1,253 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 07 March 2008 - 13:50

But where does this stop ?When there are no longer drivers in the cars and they are all driven remotely by drivers using Play stations

#108 StefanV

StefanV
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 07 March 2008 - 14:03

Originally posted by Rosemayer
But where does this stop ?When there are no longer drivers in the cars and they are all driven remotely by drivers using Play stations

Why not? That would be very interesting. There could still be a human supervisor inside the car, but if computers and sensors controlled it an ocean of new challenges would appear. Suddenly the research would also benefit transport industry outside F1. F1 needs a direction, they need to move forward again. At the moment there is equal forces trying to drag F1 back to the sixties and forward to Now. The result is a sport that shows symptoms of Parkinson's disease.

#109 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 07 March 2008 - 14:07

Originally posted by StefanV

Why not? That would be very interesting. There could still be a human supervisor inside the car, but if computers and sensors controlled it an ocean of new challenges would appear. Suddenly the research would also benefit transport industry outside F1. F1 needs a direction, they need to move forward again. At the moment there is equal forces trying to drag F1 back to the sixties and forward to Now. The result is a sport that shows symptoms of Parkinson's disease.


Such a series, devoid of drivers, would rapidly lose the interest of the public as a sporting competition. The driver is where the focus of the vast majority of fans is..... particularly the casual fan.

#110 StefanV

StefanV
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 07 March 2008 - 14:17

Originally posted by angst


Such a series, devoid of drivers, would rapidly lose the interest of the public as a sporting competition. The driver is where the focus of the vast majority of fans is..... particularly the casual fan.

Yes. And therein lies also the problem. None of the teams, and specially not the manufacturers, are there to give glory to a driver. They want glory for the team. They must decide which way to go. I am happy with either way as long as they get themselves out of this deadlock. Frozen engines, chassis and aero specified to the third decimal, standar ECU, spec tyres (kind of), rev limiter.... What has that to do with Formula One?

#111 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,237 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 07 March 2008 - 14:27

Originally posted by StefanV

Yes. And therein lies also the problem. None of the teams, and specially not the manufacturers, are there to give glory to a driver. They want glory for the team. They must decide which way to go.

I strongly disagree. The teams love having a "great" driver - its huge PR. That's why they pay them so much! Its not just that they can driver - the team wants all the publicity that a "great" engenders. Its why Nike pays Tiger so much - although he deserves it. But the teams make money from keeping a so called, and wildy built up "great". Hence the McLaren branding of KR: the "Iceman". What a lot of phooie - although I always presumed, he did like it with ice. ;) And KR - you are bloody good!

#112 F1Johnny

F1Johnny
  • Member

  • 5,556 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 07 March 2008 - 15:05

Originally posted by BMW_F1



oh no.. Cycling definitely is. They are on the Olympics.


So is synchronized swimming.

#113 Rosemayer

Rosemayer
  • Member

  • 1,253 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 07 March 2008 - 19:13

Originally posted by F1Johnny


So is synchronized swimming.


And to add to that Prost rode in 2 Tour de France

#114 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 07 March 2008 - 19:52

Originally posted by micra_k10

Prost was good at his time, but to win today, you cant just rely on others falling of the road and crashing between themselves. You need to put yourself to the front with sheer pace.



:lol: :lol: That is funny.

#115 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 07 March 2008 - 20:23

these stats from prostfan.com

Alain's F1-Statistics/Records
F1-Races 199 (of that 107 on McLaren)
Starts on Turbos 126 - RECORD
GP Wins 51 (Record broken by M. Schumacher on 02.09.2001)
Win-percentage 25.50 %
Successive Years of Winning 10 (1981-1990)
(Record broken by M. Schumacher 2002)
Wins of own national GP's 6 (France 1981-1993) - RECORD
Win from lowest grid position 13th (Mexico 1990)
Second places 35
Third places 20
Fourth places 10
Fifth places 5
Sixth places 7
Races in the points 128 (64%)
Pole Positions 33 (16.50 %)
Successive Pole Positions 7 (1993)
Front rows 86 (43 %)
Fastest laps 41 - (20.50 %)
Fastest laps in a season 7 (1988)
Win/Fastest lap doubles 21 - (Record broken by M. Schumacher)
Pole/Fastest lap doubles 15
Win/Pole Position doubles 18
Points 798.5 - (3.99 per race)
Most points in a season 105 (1988)
Laps led 2'684.1 = 12'481.3 km = 7'755.5 miles
Races led 85 (42 %)
Races led in a season 15 (1993) - RECORD
World Championship Titles 4 (1985, 1986, 1989, 1993)


Now, consider that Prost amassed these amazing numbers while competing against the likes of Rosberg (1x wdc), Lauda (3x wdc), Piquet (3x wdc), Senna (3x wdc), Mansell (1x wdc) et al, and it really underlines how good the little guy with the big nose really was. This was a very competitive time in F1, the likes of which we haven't seen since that era passed (imo). :up:

Yep, clearly just some guy who trundled around waiting for others to break down so he could collect points.;)

sorry for the distraction, carry on..

#116 pUs

pUs
  • Member

  • 2,553 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 07 March 2008 - 20:45

Originally posted by micra_k10
[B]
Prost was good at his time, but to win today, you cant just rely on others falling of the road and crashing between themselves. You need to put yourself to the front with sheer pace.

Sorry, but that's just a plain stupid post. Prost could be an extremely competitive and quick driver when he needed to. Very rarely did he cross his own limits, rather the opposite. The fact that he almost never crashed himself (how that could be a bad thing in an era without driver aids??) is not the same thing as cruising to several world titles..

#117 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 07 March 2008 - 20:46

Don't worry, that's just micra.

An authority, very critical towards every driver that isn't called Kimi Raikkonen: The only ever driver in history with sheer pace. :p

#118 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 07 March 2008 - 21:36

yep. when Kimi records 41 fastest laps, 33 pole positions, and 51 GP wins, we'll know he has 'pace'. ;)

#119 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 07 March 2008 - 21:41

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" ;)

Advertisement

#120 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 07 March 2008 - 21:59

yeah, truth is he was slow as mollasses (did I spell that right?). :lol:

#121 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 07 March 2008 - 22:04

Right, Prost was just a journeyman who relied on others falling off the road and crashing between themselves™.

He has no right at all to talk about the current drivers generation, the cruiser that he was.

#122 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 07 March 2008 - 22:10

Well they were all cruisers in those days, led by Eddie Cheever (as in Eddie and the cruisers...sorry) . Nobody had figured out how to go truly fast yet. For that we needed wonder boy to come along a few years ago and show us how to hold down the pedal on the right.

#123 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 07 March 2008 - 22:27

True, it was only the low quality of his opponents (Senna who?) that enabled cruiser and collector Prost to reach such impressive figures.

Impressive on paper only, of course. Not for the vrai connaisseurs.

#124 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 07 March 2008 - 22:27

I have said it before, and I will say it again. Prost is probably the best driver that I have seen in my 22 years of watching F1. Whilst I was wanting Mansell to win, and couldn't help but be taken by Senna's passion, the simple fact is that Prost was IMHO a better all round driver than both. Look at 1990 where Senna had a much better car, yet still needed to ram Prost off the road to win.

4 WDC's in an era of such intense competition is much more impressive than 7 WDC's with little or no competition IMHO.

#125 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 08 March 2008 - 00:20

giacomo :lol:

it's been fun talking to you today. enjoy your wknd.

#126 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,237 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 08 March 2008 - 00:45

Originally posted by pUs
Sorry, but that's just a plain stupid post. Prost could be an extremely competitive and quick driver when he needed to. Very rarely did he cross his own limits, rather the opposite. The fact that he almost never crashed himself (how that could be a bad thing in an era without driver aids??) is not the same thing as cruising to several world titles..

He was crazy fast in the Turbo Renault cars - I wonder if he did not play a role in breaking so many? Who knows? Still Prost when younger likely often drove too quickly. The proff was at McLaren against Lauda, he'd have easily won that WDC if he had of driven more slowly. He was much much faster than Lauda - who was much much much smarter than Prost. The professor learned though - Lauda taught him the hard way by pinching that WDC. Another the points scoring really robbed him of a championship. Then he lost one due to that incident with Senna. He lost a few by unusual circumstances - but then the win in Adelaide seemed to make up for more than one of those.




#127 former champ

former champ
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 08 March 2008 - 04:25

Originally posted by giacomo
Don't worry, that's just micra.

An authority, very critical towards every driver that isn't called Kimi Raikkonen: The only ever driver in history with sheer pace. :p


:lol:

gotta love the fanboys.

#128 former champ

former champ
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 08 March 2008 - 04:33

Originally posted by Craven Morehead
[/B] Now, consider that Prost amassed these amazing numbers while competing against the likes of Rosberg (1x wdc), Lauda (3x wdc), Piquet (3x wdc), Senna (3x wdc), Mansell (1x wdc) et al, and it really underlines how good the little guy with the big nose really was. This was a very competitive time in F1, the likes of which we haven't seen since that era passed (imo). :up:[/B]


not to mention he also was a teammate to Lauda, Senna and Mansell. Top post, well said. He's a true great Alain and he has a point. He raced in an era where tyres had to be looked after, fuel had to be conserved (that's coupled with turbo boost....) there was no automatic shifting, no other driver aids and certainly no TC.

While we obviously can't go back and technology is a good thing in general, I find it hard to rate today's drivers when they have none of that to contend with. You used to be able to pressure a driver into missing a shift and thus you could blast by them. How you supposed to do that today? A big element of that is lacking in today's racing.

Having said that, I can see the likes of Raikkonen, Alonso and Hamilton still being top drivers in the turbo era for instance. The others? Really can't see it.....

#129 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 08 March 2008 - 07:51

Originally posted by Craven Morehead
giacomo :lol:

it's been fun talking to you today. enjoy your wknd.

Same here. :)

#130 Collective

Collective
  • Member

  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 08 March 2008 - 13:57

Originally posted by Craven Morehead
these stats from prostfan.com

Alain's F1-Statistics/Records
F1-Races 199 (of that 107 on McLaren)
Starts on Turbos 126 - RECORD
GP Wins 51 (Record broken by M. Schumacher on 02.09.2001)
Win-percentage 25.50 %
Successive Years of Winning 10 (1981-1990)
(Record broken by M. Schumacher 2002)
Wins of own national GP's 6 (France 1981-1993) - RECORD
Win from lowest grid position 13th (Mexico 1990)
Second places 35
Third places 20
Fourth places 10
Fifth places 5
Sixth places 7
Races in the points 128 (64%)
Pole Positions 33 (16.50 %)
Successive Pole Positions 7 (1993)
Front rows 86 (43 %)
Fastest laps 41 - (20.50 %)
Fastest laps in a season 7 (1988)
Win/Fastest lap doubles 21 - (Record broken by M. Schumacher)
Pole/Fastest lap doubles 15
Win/Pole Position doubles 18
Points 798.5 - (3.99 per race)
Most points in a season 105 (1988)
Laps led 2'684.1 = 12'481.3 km = 7'755.5 miles
Races led 85 (42 %)
Races led in a season 15 (1993) - RECORD
World Championship Titles 4 (1985, 1986, 1989, 1993)


Now, consider that Prost amassed these amazing numbers while competing against the likes of Rosberg (1x wdc), Lauda (3x wdc), Piquet (3x wdc), Senna (3x wdc), Mansell (1x wdc) et al, and it really underlines how good the little guy with the big nose really was. This was a very competitive time in F1, the likes of which we haven't seen since that era passed (imo). :up:

Yep, clearly just some guy who trundled around waiting for others to break down so he could collect points.;)

sorry for the distraction, carry on..


Those 41 fastest laps were a record until the Schummi-Ferrari combo... to those who claim Prost wasn't fast :rolleyes:

I think the race is the time to be the fastest ;)

#131 RSNS

RSNS
  • Member

  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 08 March 2008 - 15:46

Originally posted by paranoik0


I'm not seeing many people defending modern F1 here.

Here's my take on it: I've been recently watching the races from the 1985 season (one year before I was born) and the idea I get from the races is that Prost is right about the "strategy" sense having been lost. I really like the fact the drivers had to manage their tyres at least (to try avoiding having to pit), and not rely on knowing the tyres will be changed in the pretty much mandatory refuel stops nowadays. Also it's great how the cars behaved very differently in lots of fuel and little fuel, both situations that had to be managed in a race. Nowadays cars never run with fuel for more than 50% of the race.

The level of uncertainty in 1985 races is much higher than nowadays which makes it much more entertaining. However I'm not sure if it's possible to bring back that level of uncertainty under any regulations - it happened not only because of the ban on refuelling, but also because cars were WAY more unreliable. I think the current regulations on 4-race engines, 4-race gearboxes, etc, are stupid and contribute to this, but even if you remove them, the cars won't suddenly start blowing up - teams are simply far more professional these days and technology has advanced a lot more. It's a natural evolution.

Overtaking was clearly much easier with actual slipstreaming happening, although I was very surprised to watch how it often was too easy! Most drivers just let the other pass and wouldn't try too hard to block, fearing contact would happen and ruin their races (not to mention ruining their bones, vital organs, spinal tissue...). Nowadays the safety element IMO made drivers much more aggressive wheel-to-wheel, however the dirty aero problems defeats this good point as it's gone completely the other way, it's impossible to pass.

Continuing to talk about the good points of modern F1: sense of speed is definitely a major point, even if modern circuits often look like huge parking lots. Modern cars just look much faster most of the time. Although I think this is heavily connected to how much coverage has improved: in 1985 races I don't see onboard shots. I see too many boring shots from helicopters or from very far away. I get very annoyed at how there's no info at all on anyone below 6th place. Not to mention the extra laptop with live timing next to the TV that I use nowadays. We're too spoiled and don't realise it.

As much as I agree with him on the "strategy" side, there is one thing I think Prost is talking bollocks - which is what I think most people have criticised here. I don't think it's right to glorify the past drivers over current drivers just because they had to focus on different skills. Sure, Kimi, Alonso, Lewis, etc don't have to look after their tyres and balance their strategies in the way Prost and his generation had to in the past. They'd probably be shit at it. But then again Prost didn't have to go flat out almost every single lap back then, like these guys do nowadays. I'm not sure he'd be able to keep up in the same way, without committing any more than 1 or 2 mistakes per season like these guys do... Different eras, different skills, same merit. Except on the danger side, those old guys were simply crazy to sit inside those fragile cars and drive their wheels off.

Connected to this is his criticism on how "it's too easy for young guys" and how that is "wrong". That's nonsense. I believe the reasons for having young drivers come into F1 and immediately impress are the following:

a) they are far better trained nowadays, in terms of fitness, mental preparation, and starting single-seaters from an young age
b) detailed telemetry is now instantly available and it's possible for them to see exactly where they're losing time to the experienced driver. Does Prost want to ban telemetry? Might as well ban all computers from F1 then. Since we're there, ban electricity from the F1 paddock too.
c) all the technology available outside of a racing team environment, like very realistic computer games and widespread tv coverage of every single move of professional F1 drivers when they sit in a cockpit. Kids starting karting can learn how to take the correct lines and the correct techniques from early on.
d) lower difference in power and handling between series like GP2 and F1. Ok, I can see why people think this is bad.
e) not every single young driver coming into F1 performs like Jesus Christ on a steering wheel. Some of them fail. Some of them are genuinely talented and this isn't any different from the previous era in F1. Rookies have sit in a F1 car and immediately impressed since... ever? There's just too many examples, Emerson Fittipaldi, Ayrton Senna, Michael Schumacher, Jacques Villeneuve...

Apart from d) which is debatable, how is any of these bad? It just allows a higher driving standard and professionalism standard in F1. We want to see the best fighting out on track. Sure there's been a bit on an exaggerated focus by the media on trying to get anyone reaching mid 30s to retire immediately, but if they can't keep up with the young guys on speed anymore, should they really still be there? The reason they kept going into the 40s in the past was that experience gave them a huge advantage back then. If the same happened nowadays we'd be far worse - because there's far less seats available for people to get into F1 and accumulate experience. Remember there were 40 cars trying to get into the F1 grid at one point.

Sorry for the huge post, I felt like writing a lot about many things at the same time.


Very interesting analysis - it is not a huge post, it is a substantial one.

In fact, I agree with much of what you say. The question is that we cannot bring back the 80ies because cars are much more professionally built and drivers do have a different kind of preparation.

But strategy could be brought back. For one thing, making pit stops more costly in terms of time would make for uncertainty because drivers would think twice before making one or two (or no) stops.

Also, making refueling impossible would be a good thing. Giving back the point for best lap (perhaps only half a point) might be interesting, too.

Now regarding the old days, I think drivers had to mind not only tire wear but also gearboxes and engines. With the current rev limiter this is impossible; and with the current gearboxes that is also meaningless (I would favor manual gearchanges). If the engines were stretched to the limit we would, again, have strategy in that department.

Another point is the circuits themselves. Nowadays people are racing flat circuits and vertical elevations (vertical curves, as Taruffi called them) are absent. This means that racing is two dimensional; in the past a car's path was actually three-dimensional, which meant that drivers had to cope with constant changes in adhesion. It was also extremely beautiful to watch a car as if in space: the very fast downhill and uphill curves made the cars look like rockets in space.

Nowadays, there is eau rouge and not much else. The reason is, I think, that with all the aero, vertical curves do not exist anymore, so it is useless to build them. However, this gave all the beauty of old racing. If you look at the Villeneuve-Arnoux duel (in You Tube there are a lot of clips) you will find that the beauty of the fight was actually enhanced by the beauty of the racing lines: up and down through corners.

Most circuits had this feature: the Ring, Spa, but also a 'modern' circuit as Zeltweg or Brands Hatch, all had this feature. If aero rules change and if cars are made more dependent on mechanical grip and less on aero grip, this beauty might come back.

While I agree that modern day TV coverage is better, there is the problem that there are too many takes of what I call 'the driver's helmet'. By this I mean that you do not see the car in the curve, just a small part of it. As I think the beauty stems from watching the trajectories, I do miss the old days perspective of a whole curve or of a series of curves. Partly this is due to the lack of curve combinations (one, two, three corners in quick succession).

This is a huge post and not a particularly informative one - but I am very short on time, and it is this or nothing, really.

#132 rearwheelskid00

rearwheelskid00
  • Member

  • 99 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 12 March 2008 - 09:32

Hamilton is not happy with Prost's comments.

He condemns Prost's comments by saying "I'm a bit surprised by that. Obviously he has a right to his own opinion, but for me I think it's even more challenging and a lot harder than it is with traction control. Without TC there is a real skill and the real knack to feeling the throttle and really getting down the power without lighting up your rear tyres. You have to look after your tyres a lot more than you have done in past years. I think what you'll see the top, top drivers will rise above the good drivers."


Prost Off The Mark

#133 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 12 March 2008 - 09:40

Originally posted by rearwheelskid00
Hamilton is not happy with Prost's comments.

Prost Off The Mark


I think that Hamilton has got the wrong end of the stick......surely, that the removal of TC makes it more difficult rather supports Prost's point...

#134 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 12 March 2008 - 09:49

Originally posted by angst


I think that Hamilton has got the wrong end of the stick......surely, that the removal of TC makes it more difficult rather supports Prost's point...


Sounds to me as though a journo misquoted Prost to Hammy, in order to create a "Lewis condemns Prost" story. Create as in fabricate.

#135 StefanV

StefanV
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 12 March 2008 - 09:50

Originally posted by angst


I think that Hamilton has got the wrong end of the stick......surely, that the removal of TC makes it more difficult rather supports Prost's point...

Yes. Articles without a byline... I can not understand that story was printed since it is obvious that Hamilton have not had Prosts quotes correctly brought to him and the reporter should have realized by Lewis answer that there was a misunderstanding. My guess is that the reporter have misread Prosts statements, passed his/hers misunderstandings to Lewis and therefore not noticed the error.
Someone should notify AAP.

#136 RSNS

RSNS
  • Member

  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 12 March 2008 - 21:43

Originally posted by rearwheelskid00

Prost Off The Mark

:rolleyes:
Not addressed to you, rearwheel...