185 replies to this topic

[GrpB]

As has been stated here previously, there are any number of "one design" categories around the world to satisfy spectators who want to see racing based on driver skill alone (of course car setup and preparation remain a factor). Formula 1 needs to remain a class where technological innovation can flourish. I believe the rules should be as open as possible with annual tightening of a couple of key specifications to maintain safety levels as technology raises the performance potential of the cars. Having said that, I am not against limiting technologies that have little or no road car relevance eg aero.

This line of argument is not clear to me. Without parity of machines there can be no good racing, and by definition technological advancement occurs in fits and starts, which results in a continuous lack of parity among machinery and an increased likelikhood of boring racing. Only when the machinery is allowed to mature, or to at least develop at a measured pace, does technological advancement cease to be the domain of the few machines on the grid with the resources to exploit the technology. The longer the ruleset stays constant, regardless of the content, the closer to "spec" the machinery becomes, with no machine having a clear advantage. The explicit limiting of certain technologies only hastens this condition of evolved parity. This of course is a horrible thought for people that would rather see one machine way out in front because one team has the newest technological advancement and the resources to exploit it, but racing is a business, and one machine or another consistently way out in front is bad for the business of racing.

Rules exist to force parity, with the intent of indirect budgetary control, and of course exciting racing. Rules that legislate new technologies or deviations from the existing norm are not specifically anti-technology or anti-ingenuity, they are aimed at forcing parity. The disconnect between forced parity and racing with regards to new automotive technology is that most new technologies related to mainstream, practical, automotive development are aimed at reducing the negative effect of the most poorly developed and inconsistent feature of any vehicle, and that is the human control system. Which is EXCELLENT for parity, but TERRIBLE for exciting racing.

Traction/stability control, control by wire, adaptive/active suspension, ABS, almost all of the mentioned "trickle down technologies" which actually benefit the general public were designed specifically to take control away from the driver, or enhance the ability of the driver beyond what would be physically possible for them to do without those new technologies. Are the techno-fetishists here advocating that F1 adopt the new technologies related to actual automotive development now like adaptive cruise control, automated path following, lane keeping assist, collision avoidance and the like which are rightfully being developed because of their high value to actual passenger car use? At what point do you cry uncle in the quest for "new" and "innovative" technologies to be implemented in racing?

There certainly are venues for spec racing, but right back at you, there are certainly more appropriate venues for the advancement of technology as it relates to practical use than racing. Certainly the concept of high downforce aerodynamics is neither new nor innovative, and certainly has no relevance to any form of ground based practical transport currently or in development.

One of the first things I do in any "fun" car is find the button or start sequence to disable or minimize the traction/stability/yaw control, thereby negating decades worth of trickle down racing technology. And I fear the (inevitable) day that I no longer do this. But perhaps that is where we fundamentally differ...

[DOF_power]

LMAO!!

Man you ever need to do some study up on the car world and it's innovations timeline in general.

Even 1960's crappy old Austin 1800's had a form of active suspension. I might be wrong but I think Lotus first started testing with modified Citroen components.

As an aside, I well remember turning my nose up at reports of Volvo testing the new TC (Volvo - Sweden - slippery snow) and thinking "wheres the fun in that"?
- I was a teenager, a long time ago

I meant active as in electronically actuated/controlled, of-course.

I know about those mechanical and/or hydraulic solution.

Here what know:

It was Citroen with that hydropneumatic that started it with those suspensions; witch also inspired BMC/BL.


As to the mechanic TC solution, I know MB was working on an AWD mechanical based TC for their 54/55 W196 F1 GP racecars.
And the concept is older than that.
Semi-automatics can be traced to the 1930s.
The aero-brakes where on 1950s 1950 MB Le Mans

The 1939 MB GP racecars had mechanical inboard lever adjustable ride height systems (while Mansell/Patrese/Prost/Hill had to press a button, or let the computerized nervous system to its job, or the 2 way telemetry).


How is knowledge of the automotive innovation timeline ?!



For electronic actuated/active solutions, F1 racecars were first to be fitted with such technologies; while Volvo, Citroen (Hydractive) came afterwards.

[DOF_power]

This line of argument is not clear to me. Without parity of machines there can be no good racing, and by definition technological advancement occurs in fits and starts, which results in a continuous lack of parity among machinery and an increased likelikhood of boring racing. Only when the machinery is allowed to mature, or to at least develop at a measured pace, does technological advancement cease to be the domain of the few machines on the grid with the resources to exploit the technology. The longer the ruleset stays constant, regardless of the content, the closer to "spec" the machinery becomes, with no machine having a clear advantage. The explicit limiting of certain technologies only hastens this condition of evolved parity. This of course is a horrible thought for people that would rather see one machine way out in front because one team has the newest technological advancement and the resources to exploit it, but racing is a business, and one machine or another consistently way out in front is bad for the business of racing.

Rules exist to force parity, with the intent of indirect budgetary control, and of course exciting racing. Rules that legislate new technologies or deviations from the existing norm are not specifically anti-technology or anti-ingenuity, they are aimed at forcing parity. The disconnect between forced parity and racing with regards to new automotive technology is that most new technologies related to mainstream, practical, automotive development are aimed at reducing the negative effect of the most poorly developed and inconsistent feature of any vehicle, and that is the human control system. Which is EXCELLENT for parity, but TERRIBLE for exciting racing.

Traction/stability control, control by wire, adaptive/active suspension, ABS, almost all of the mentioned "trickle down technologies" which actually benefit the general public were designed specifically to take control away from the driver, or enhance the ability of the driver beyond what would be physically possible for them to do without those new technologies. Are the techno-fetishists here advocating that F1 adopt the new technologies related to actual automotive development now like adaptive cruise control, automated path following, lane keeping assist, collision avoidance and the like which are rightfully being developed because of their high value to actual passenger car use? At what point do you cry uncle in the quest for "new" and "innovative" technologies to be implemented in racing?

There certainly are venues for spec racing, but right back at you, there are certainly more appropriate venues for the advancement of technology as it relates to practical use than racing. Certainly the concept of high downforce aerodynamics is neither new nor innovative, and certainly has no relevance to any form of ground based practical transport currently or in development.

One of the first things I do in any "fun" car is find the button or start sequence to disable or minimize the traction/stability/yaw control, thereby negating decades worth of trickle down racing technology. And I fear the (inevitable) day that I no longer do this. But perhaps that is where we fundamentally differ...

I don't want any forced anything.

Worst then boring racing, is spec/forced parity/phony-baloney racertainment.

And usually you end up with boring spec/semi-spec crapwagons races, witch is the worst scenario.

Let's them just race.
If a team comes up with a car drives itself like the DARPA Challenge racecar, then so be it.

[DOF_power]

Neither do I but I do want to see both car AND driver skill to the fore.

Its not just about the car but it is at the moment.

Funny how the driver is irrelevant these days, but the cars are closer and more reliable and safer then ever.

Maybe the driver should get killed all the time, and return to those old races when only 1/2 to 1/3 of the cars on the grid would finish, and be separated by lap or 2 each.

I wonder how much did driver skill ultimately counted in Clark's losing the 62, 64 and 67 championships.
Or in helping Moss, Peterson and Villeneuve being the greatest drivers never to win WDCs.


Rose tinted spectacles.

The truth is the car's speed and reliability (even moreso) and teams who build/made those cars always had the decisive saying in who the winners are vs. driver "skill".

As Fangio put, 75% car and mechanics and 25% driver and luck.



I can't imagine Enzo Ferrari building a racing empire on driving skill. He sacrificed himself and his family for his Scuderia and his cars.
What's that old (attribute to) Ferrari saying, cars win races not drivers.

[LMP900]

Great conclusion....Full of open mind.

I started with an open mind - and 30 years experience working in motor racing.

Active aerodynamics responsive enough to control downforce in a highly disturbed onset flow like the wake of a car in front aren't realistic. The strain gauge on a pushrod has a poor signal-noise ratio and is in the middle of a highly elastic system with unpredictable damping. You're also dealing with very complex flows over surfaces close to or touching an interface. This is not like an aircraft. It won't work, just as the current OWG tweaks haven't worked - and they haven't worked: Sam Michael is the latest of several drivers and engineers to admit that.

[DOF_power]

I started with an open mind - and 30 years experience working in motor racing.

Active aerodynamics responsive enough to control downforce in a highly disturbed onset flow like the wake of a car in front aren't realistic. The strain gauge on a pushrod has a poor signal-noise ratio and is in the middle of a highly elastic system with unpredictable damping. You're also dealing with very complex flows over surfaces close to or touching an interface. This is not like an aircraft. It won't work, just as the current OWG tweaks haven't worked - and they haven't worked: Sam Michael is the latest of several drivers and engineers to admit that.

They also said the same about active suspensions, that it's impossible for computers to actuate in real time, and that it isn't realistic due to the complexities involved.
Ditto for active AWD.

[grunge]

I started with an open mind - and 30 years experience working in motor racing.

Active aerodynamics responsive enough to control downforce in a highly disturbed onset flow like the wake of a car in front aren't realistic. The strain gauge on a pushrod has a poor signal-noise ratio and is in the middle of a highly elastic system with unpredictable damping. You're also dealing with very complex flows over surfaces close to or touching an interface. This is not like an aircraft. It won't work, just as the current OWG tweaks haven't worked - and they haven't worked: Sam Michael is the latest of several drivers and engineers to admit that.

firstly completely agreed on the adj. front wing.this is exactly what i stated earlier in this thread.

secondly on the issue of the current OWG tweaks not working..well they werent recommended for the scenario where a double diffuser would be allowed.the wake issue increased massively with the dd in place and nullifies many modifications that were implemented onOWG recommendations

[meb58]

I thought I might throw a little comparison in...if it's dumb, so be it, I'm a little bored today.

I sometimes think of F1 cars and current military aircraft as being on the same level from a human/machine interface perspective. But there is indeed a key difference between the two; designing military aircraft require designing in an unfair advantage and every technology and strategy must be exploited to guarantee that advantage. I agree that F1 should push a technological threshold that may find its way to garden variety road going fare but F1 should also remain a sport that is a competion of wills and talent. I think certain types of technology have the potential to unbalance the human/machine interface and in the process make the driver and the teams less relevent.

We are a captive bunch, we humans...we like to see machines that defy our daily notion of speed and both the above provide that sensation. But one is meant to help guarantee some sense of sovereignty in remote arenas - with the threat of destruction - while the other is a spectacle born from man's will to compete in a more or less gentlemnely manner. The car and driver is more tangible because we can be the hero the minute we step into our own rides...more so if 'some' of the technology finds its way into our rigs.

I'll never drive an F1 car, but the possibility of a drive in a Ferrari is a lot more likely than me flying an F-22 tomorrow...in fact, that'l never happen. Maybe I should just go drink a beer.

EDIT: remote arenas above means we don't really ever see jets dropping bombs...regrettably some of us have, past and present.

Edited by meb58, 25 June 2009 - 20:32.

[dosco]

Funny how the driver is irrelevant these days, but the cars are closer and more reliable and safer then ever.

So I guess we'll look forward to you hopping into this year's Brawn and taking the WDC from Jenson?

[dosco]

I meant active as in electronically actuated/controlled, of-course.

"Of course?"

Try using words, they mean things.

For electronic actuated/active solutions, F1 racecars were first to be fitted with such technologies; while Volvo, Citroen (Hydractive) came afterwards.

I'm not sure that is true, and I'm also not sure why it is somehow relevant only if it is fitted to an F1 car. Is it not possible that a good technology could be adopted from production cars to F1 cars?

I'm also reminded of the story of when Villeneuve moved to F1 from IndyCar racing ... the story that I recall is that he came to the pits and asked for a change to the front wing, and was told it would take too long. After much internal discussion, Williams adopted jackscrew-actuated wing flaps. This was considered an innovation (!!). A bit of a surprise, as I was under the illusion that F1 was the "pinnacle of motor racing." Right.

[DOF_power]

"Of course?"

Try using words, they mean things.


Active is a word associated with computer controlled in F1 and beyond. And F1 did pioneered, extended and perfected those technology till they where banned after 1993.



I'm not sure that is true, and I'm also not sure why it is somehow relevant only if it is fitted to an F1 car. Is it not possible that a good technology could be adopted from production cars to F1 cars?

I'm also reminded of the story of when Villeneuve moved to F1 from IndyCar racing ... the story that I recall is that he came to the pits and asked for a change to the front wing, and was told it would take too long. After much internal discussion, Williams adopted jackscrew-actuated wing flaps. This was considered an innovation (!!). A bit of a surprise, as I was under the illusion that F1 was the "pinnacle of motor racing." Right.



I never said production car technology shouldn't be put into F1, nor vice-versa.
F1 stopped being the pinnacle after 1993.
I want relevance and innovation to return to motorsport.
I don't want PR B*.
A big selling point of F1 is the supposed technological pinnacle status, even if it's just a lie in reality.
When people find out the it's a shameless lie, they're disappointed and turned off.

There are many fans who want their favorite manufacturer to go all the way to win, and in doing so use the most advanced technology, some witch will trickle down into production cars one day.

They don't want any drivers made into heros by the press, motorsport Beckhams, sellers or trinkets and trash .

***************************

Edited by DOF_power, 26 June 2009 - 00:01.

[DOF_power]

So I guess we'll look forward to you hopping into this year's Brawn and taking the WDC from Jenson?

I can't drive an F1 car, and I'm one that's capable of admitting it.

There where just as bad or worse/less contested championships in the past.

Ferrari/Ascari in 52 and 53 (F2 rules), MB/Fangio in 54 and 55, Cooper/Brabham in 1960, Lotus/Clark in 63 and 65, Brabham/Brabham in 66, Matra/Stewart in 69, Tyrrell/Stewart in 71, Ferrari/Lauda in 75, etc, etc, etc.

It's a natural thing in motorsport that at one point a team/car/driver will dominate, no matter what the rules are.
Why go for spec-ing and dumb-ing down the cars is beyond me.

Edited by DOF_power, 26 June 2009 - 00:01.

[cheapracer]

What's that old (attribute to) Ferrari saying, cars win races not drivers.

Upon which I mention Schumacher, Irvine and Rubens in the one sentence then somehow Senna and Adelaide 1994 end up being mentioned.

Enzo also said the car is a evil requirement only to carry the engine, this Italian thinking didn't help them very often did it.

I'm not sure what your trying to say, last night I watched the 1996 Spa race of which the grid was covered by 6 seconds, the quality of passing/passing attempts/slipstreaming was just in another world compared to the bullshit "racing" these days from a grid covered by just 2 seconds - and horror to betsy, they even went sideways occasionally requiring extra driver skill input.

[NRoshier]

I Agree, I watched the British GP a weeks or so ago and this was the first GP I have watched for 8 years...it was good.

[Ogami musashi]

I started with an open mind - and 30 years experience working in motor racing.

Active aerodynamics responsive enough to control downforce in a highly disturbed onset flow like the wake of a car in front aren't realistic. The strain gauge on a pushrod has a poor signal-noise ratio and is in the middle of a highly elastic system with unpredictable damping. You're also dealing with very complex flows over surfaces close to or touching an interface. This is not like an aircraft. It won't work, just as the current OWG tweaks haven't worked - and they haven't worked: Sam Michael is the latest of several drivers and engineers to admit that.

A fighter aircraft FCS will dynamicaly adjust the surfaces to provide net lift at AOA where there're a lot of turbulence, it works.

The question is not to adapt to every load variation but simply to adapt to lower total pressure. There's no problem to that.


Your assumption OWG works did not work is wrong. You have no idea what were the OWG works. The fact that the in season cars have problems has nothing to see, the OWG configurations did work. The problem is that the F1 cars are developped and the sole fact that diffuser relative downforce to the total downforce had increased is sufficent to nix the OWG configuration.

[OO7]

I started with an open mind - and 30 years experience working in motor racing.

Active aerodynamics responsive enough to control downforce in a highly disturbed onset flow like the wake of a car in front aren't realistic. The strain gauge on a pushrod has a poor signal-noise ratio and is in the middle of a highly elastic system with unpredictable damping.

I previously suggested using aggressive (high downforce) venturi tunnels, with louvres around the throat area. In clean air the louvres are open to prevent excessive levels of downforce. As the car encounters turbulence and begins to lose downforce they begin to close, so as to maintain the clean air d/f levels. I don't think mechanical response should be an issue for such a device.

It may be possible to use GPS in conjunction with the speed of the competitor directly ahead to activate the system and or use sensors capable of detecting turbulence?

Obi

[grunge]

Your assumption OWG works did not work is wrong. You have no idea what were the OWG works. The fact that the in season cars have problems has nothing to see, the OWG configurations did work. The problem is that the F1 cars are developped and the sole fact that diffuser relative downforce to the total downforce had increased is sufficent to nix the OWG configuration.

...i think its surprising how people forget to take this into consideration.

the recommedations from OWG wouldve worked IMO had the double diffuser not been allowed...OWG stated that the wake from the diffuser was much more damaging compared to that from rear wing because it doesnt get eliminated as quickly. plus the rear wing inwash brings new high energy air in at the ground levels...the dd diffusers being allowed result in significantly increased wake..this is also evident from felipe massa's comments very recently..

[DOF_power]

Upon which I mention Schumacher, Irvine and Rubens in the one sentence then somehow Senna and Adelaide 1994 end up being mentioned.

Enzo also said the car is a evil requirement only to carry the engine, this Italian thinking didn't help them very often did it.


Despite his shortcoming and flaws, Ferrari created a myth, a racing empire, most adored and most followed in the world of motor-sport; something that no anglo-saxon ever did.

The anglo-saxons brought in motorsport the football journalist mentality/a.k.a. contemporary roman circus mentality, consisting of:

"S*** the teams and the cars, wouldn't you rather worship those personalities, and buy some trinkets and trash ?!"


Enzo Ferrari saw there error of this way, and created the myth of the Scuderia and it's cars.
He sacrificed himself, his family and others to do so because he knew the futility of the personality way, and the importance of a legend.
He realized men/personalities will be forgotten as the time passes, but not legends.





I'm not sure what your trying to say, last night I watched the 1996 Spa race of which the grid was covered by 6 seconds, the quality of passing/passing attempts/slipstreaming was just in another world compared to the bullshit "racing" these days from a grid covered by just 2 seconds - and horror to betsy, they even went sideways occasionally requiring extra driver skill input.


1995 or 1996 ?!

That's my point, you need differences in car-driver combos to pass.
If you have close cars with close drivers, and little to no variation in speeds they won't pass each other much.


The drivers weren't more skilled, they where less skilled, and less prepared, and less fit.
Witch meant more mistakes, less synchronized late braking, and less closing the door, a.k.a. more shuffling/passing.

Look at the grid, Dill (one of the worst ever WDC), Villeneuve (ditto), Alesi, Salo, DC, Diniz, Herbert, Katayama, Lamy weren't exactly top notch material; more like pay drivers and/or second fiddle drivers.

If going sideways requires skill why wasn't Michael Andretti any good in F1 ?!
Or Nelson Piquet Jr. , in F1 ?!
Or Heikki "rally sideways" Kovalainen (in F1) ?!


What about Villeneuve post slicks being beaten by Button, Alonso, Heidfeld ?!
He was complete crap when he was required to dial in understeering in a car; but he could go sideways.

[cheapracer]

Despite his shortcoming and flaws, Ferrari created a myth, a racing empire, most adored and most followed in the world of motor-sport; something that no anglo-saxon ever did.

Firstly, can you do us all a favour and reply like everyone else does please?

Ferrari didn't win on mass without Anglo Saxon input, both drivers and/or engineers.


The drivers weren't more skilled, they were less skilled,

I didn't say they were, no they weren't.

Edited by cheapracer, 26 June 2009 - 11:08.

[DOF_power]

Despite his shortcoming and flaws, Ferrari created a myth, a racing empire, most adored and most followed in the world of motor-sport; something that no anglo-saxon ever did.

Firstly, can you do us all a favour and reply like everyone else does please?
Ferrari didn't win on mass without Anglo Saxon input, both drivers and/or engineers.

He even thought to move the team to England, more then once.
That's because above all else he wanted the Scuderia - cars to win, thus too continue to fuel the legend.

And he'd fire them in an instant if they'd think themselves greater then the legend.

I didn't say they were, no they weren't.

So what's the point then ?!
Amateur/second-hand "racers", on proper/less chicane-ised tracks provide more entertainment.
But that's nothing new.

[cheapracer]

So what's the point then ?!
Amateur/second-hand "racers", on proper/less chicane-ised tracks provide more entertainment.
But that's nothing new.

Ok, you win, I haven't a clue what your talking about in most of your replies - you have totally beaten me by "baffling me with bullshit" as we say in Oz.

[DOF_power]

Ok, you win, I haven't a clue what your talking about in most of your replies - you have totally beaten me by "baffling me with bullshit" as we say in Oz.

I apologize as english isn't my native language.

But what B* would that be ?!

Apart from M/ Schumacher, I doon't miss any driver from back then.
They where inferior to all but Kovalainen, Piquet Jr. and Nakajima Jr.

I do believe Spa 2008 was a nice race though because of the rain.

[LMP900]

A fighter aircraft FCS will dynamicaly adjust the surfaces to provide net lift at AOA where there're a lot of turbulence, it works.

If you think there's any comparison between the onset flow of a fighter aircraft and an open-wheel car running in the wake of another, you are very, very naive.

The question is not to adapt to every load variation but simply to adapt to lower total pressure. There's no problem to that.

That statement goes beyond naivete.

Your assumption OWG works did not work is wrong. You have no idea what were the OWG works. The fact that the in season cars have problems has nothing to see, the OWG configurations did work. The problem is that the F1 cars are developped and the sole fact that diffuser relative downforce to the total downforce had increased is sufficent to nix the OWG configuration.

If your last sentence is correct, that proves 2 things: firstly, that racing suffers when downforce increases (so less downforce = better racing); and that the OWG did indeed get it wrong. They actually wrote the relevant regulations (as Mosley is very happy to point out if anyone complains about the lack of overtaking), so if they left loopholes, or allowed sufficient development leeway to cancel out their intention in the first season, they did a very bad job indeed.

However, if you follow the logic of the TWG, the double diffuser should improve the situation for the following car, because the inwash created by the stronger exit flow from the leading car's diffuser improves the flow to the front wing of the following car. But they're wrong - except possibly in the case where the following car is directly behind the leading car. Unfortunately, you can't overtake like that....

Anyway, I'm bored with this now - play among yourselves for a while.

[Ogami musashi]

Anyway, I'm bored with this now - play among yourselves for a while.

I'm bored with your attitude so that's fine for me now.

[Pingguest]

@Pingguest
Now for the moveable wings, the concept would be to use them automatically in the wake of someone.

This is programable via SECU.[1]

And please do not compare a sensor/processor from 92 to a 2007 one.[2]

Ad 1.
Formula 1 was originally found as the ultimate drivers' championship. This means that there should be room for technical innovation but the driver should retain full control over the car and should not be artifically aided by an automatic system. This very fundamental principle was underlined again by the 1994 and 2007 bans on driver aids. Automatically movable wings are a driver aid: they help the driver, give him artifically more grip and allow him to keep control over the car whereas he would normally lose the car. From that point of view automatically movable wings are very much against the spirit of the sport.

Ad 2.
Why shouldn't we? Of course, the 2009 (2007 is behind us, Ogami ;-)) sensors are improved but still not perfect, are they? Modern airplanes still crash due to failing sensors. I wouldn't like to see a sensor to fail while the car is driving around 300 km/h.

[OO7]

Ad 1.
Formula 1 was originally found as the ultimate drivers' championship. This means that there should be room for technical innovation but the driver should retain full control over the car and should not be artifically aided by an automatic system. This very fundamental principle was underlined again by the 1994 and 2007 bans on driver aids. Automatically movable wings are a driver aid: they help the driver, give him artifically more grip and allow him to keep control over the car whereas he would normally lose the car. From that point of view automatically movable wings are very much against the spirit of the sport.

Ad 2.
Why shouldn't we? Of course, the 2009 (2007 is behind us, Ogami ;-)) sensors are improved but still not perfect, are they? Modern airplanes still crash due to failing sensors. I wouldn't like to see a sensor to fail while the car is driving around 300 km/h.

Hi Pingguest

I disagree that automatically variable aero devices are a driver aid in the embodiment Ogami mentioned. The basic point is to maintain the clean air downforce and balance of the car while in turbulence, i.e ultimately we want the car to handle in the same fashion and offer the same cornering performance as it did in clean air. In clean air the device is stable and doesn't vary aerodynamics, so if a car begins to understeer in a corner due to circumstances outside of turbulence, it is up to the driver to 'driver around the problem' as normal. If this is seen as a driver aid then perhaps the devices should be used in another way. By automatically varying the aero of the car ahead (less downforce and balance), the SECU will incorporate a similar loss of downforce and balance as the car following. I disagree with such an implimentation (it would be a pretty silly way of trying to overcome the problem), but it therefore cannot be described in any way as a driver aid.

Yes sensors can fail, as can suspensions, wings, tyres etc. It should be a matter of course to make such a system a reliable as possible, but a failure shouldn't create a situation that was anymore dangerous than failure of other components.

Obi

Edited by Obi Offiah, 30 June 2009 - 18:44.

[dosco]

Ad 1.
Formula 1 was originally found as the ultimate drivers' championship. This means that there should be room for technical innovation but the driver should retain full control over the car and should not be artifically aided by an automatic system. This very fundamental principle was underlined again by the 1994 and 2007 bans on driver aids. Automatically movable wings are a driver aid: they help the driver, give him artifically more grip and allow him to keep control over the car whereas he would normally lose the car. From that point of view automatically movable wings are very much against the spirit of the sport.

Out of curiousity, where does one draw the line with "driver aid?"

[Tony Matthews]

Out of curiousity, where does one draw the line with "driver aid?"

Alcohol.

[ivanalesi]

See this car: http://www.superleag...-Spain/_J7A4672

Huge diffuser, huge wings, great racing at Magny Cours! What do you think makes it so exciting, beside the V12?

[DOF_power]

Ad 1.
Formula 1 was originally found as the ultimate drivers' championship. This means that there should be room for technical innovation but the driver should retain full control over the car and should not be artificially aided by an automatic system. This very fundamental principle was underlined again by the 1994 and 2007 bans on driver aids. Automatically movable wings are a driver aid: they help the driver, give him artifically more grip and allow him to keep control over the car whereas he would normally lose the car. From that point of view automatically movable wings are very much against the spirit of the sport.

Ad 2.
Why shouldn't we? Of course, the 2009 (2007 is behind us, Ogami ;-)) sensors are improved but still not perfect, are they? Modern airplanes still crash due to failing sensors. I wouldn't like to see a sensor to fail while the car is driving around 300 km/h.

No it wasn't.
It didn't even had a world driver's championship till 1950.

And many didn't even used the F1 moniker till the 1980s, they just called it Grand Prix racing or even Grande Epreuves, like they did before WWII.

And the point of Grand Prix racing was technology, publicity and national prestige.


Spirit of the sport ?!
What spirit, or what sport for that matter ?!

The spirit was, anything it takes to win.

Team orders, blatant cheating, espionage, building dangerously fragile but fast deathtraps, lobbying for advantageous rules, lobbying to ban the (faster) cars/technology of the opposition.

The winner was in many/most cases the biggest cheater and/or the biggest lobbyist.


The bans post 93 and post post 2007 had nothing to do with "the spirit of the sport" and everything to do with politics, personal agendas and (supposed) cost cutting measures, all officially masked under the driving skill/improving the racing non-sense.

[Nathan]

No it wasn't.
It didn't even had a world driver's championship till 1950.

Formula-1 didn't exist until 1950..

And what has replaced Formula-1 as the pinnacle of motor racing since 1993?

[DOF_power]

Formula-1 didn't exist until 1950..

And what has replaced Formula-1 as the pinnacle of motor racing since 1993?

F1 did exist before 1950.
1950 saw the introduction of the World Championship, witch said F1 championship races + Indy 500 make the points for the WDC.
In 1952 and 53 the World Championship was run to F2 rules/championship races, plus Indy 500, while F1 continued with only non-championship races.

In wasn't until 1981 that the current FIA Formula 1 World Championship was introduced.
Hence the F1 moniker becoming popular.

Edited by DOF_power, 01 July 2009 - 14:36.

[Nathan]

F1 did exist before 1950.
1950 saw the introduction of the World Championship, witch said F1 championship races + Indy 500 make the points for the WDC.
In 1952 and 53 the World Championship was run to F2 rules/championship races, plus Indy 500, while F1 continued with only non-championship races.

In wasn't until 1981 that the current FIA Formula 1 World Championship was introduced.
Hence the F1 moniker becoming popular.

"Formula One has its roots in the European Grand Prix motor racing (q.v. for pre-1947 history) of the 1920s and 1930s. However, the foundation of Formula One began in 1946 with the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile's (FIA's) standardisation of rules. A World Drivers' Championship followed in 1950."

Why are there Formula-One records prior to 1981?


And what has been the pinnacle of motor racing from 1994 to present?

[Ogami musashi]

This is just a question of words. The F1 championship was established in 1950 but the fact is that for two years prior to this date the championship was already held (but not under F1 name) and was a constructors championship only.

What DOF is refering to is that until 1981 there were some events held with F1 cars but not counting for F1 championship (like the race of champions).

In any way believing that F1 is first and foremost a drivers championship is negating that you still have a constructor championship and that the first championship was even not a driver one.

As for drivers aids with automatic wings, i already expressed myself to pingguest so no need to put it again.

[DOF_power]

"Formula One has its roots in the European Grand Prix motor racing (q.v. for pre-1947 history) of the 1920s and 1930s. However, the foundation of Formula One began in 1946 with the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile's (FIA's) standardisation of rules. A World Drivers' Championship followed in 1950."

Why are there Formula-One records prior to 1981?


And what has been the pinnacle of motor racing from 1994 to present?

Don't come to me with history lesson, I know better then you.
Especially don't come with that crap you read from wikipedia.

European Grand Prix racing started officially in 1906, and was essentially Gordon Bennett Cup racing with another name and without the 3 car manufacturers per country limit.

There aren't any (FIA) Formula 1 (WC) records prior to 1981.

...
Of course, the 1980 Rio meeting had in fact declared the death of Grand Prix racing as a World Championship sport and replaced it with ‘F1 racing’. It said so in the 1981 FIA Yellow Book:

GENERAL REGULATIONS
1 -- In application of the decisions taken during the FIA Rio Congress of 15th April 1980, the FISA is organising the new FIA Formula 1 World Championship from 1st January 1981. As a result, the old World Championship for Drivers is suppressed.

2 -- The new Formula 1 World Championship, which is the property of the FIA, will have 2 World Championship titles, one for Drivers and one for Constructors.

These significant lines had been Balestre’s key weapon all through 1980, as he tried to oust the FOCA from its control of Grand Prix racing, the old-school concept in which Grands Prix were the starting point, each of them negotiating invididually with their entrants, with the World Championship the mere afterthought of combining a number of prestigious races which happened to be eligible to FIA regulations which didn’t even need to be F1. The old World Championship which would be ‘suppressed’ was in fact nothing else but a collection of self-governed races appointed by the FIA to hold World Championship status, which allowed anyone else to stage an F1 race which wasn’t included in the championship.

Now though, the 1981 championship would fully be a FIA affair, as Grand Prix racing became synonymous with the F1 World Championship. All teams would have to take part in all events on the championship calendar, and the FIA would determine the rules – with each Grand Prix’s supplementary rulebook replaced by a standardised set of rules – and it would set the entry and prize monies too. ‘Non-championship’ races were to become a thing of the past as the FIA F1 World Championship events would be the only races allowed to run according to F1 regulations.

...

http://forix.autospo.../fiasco-81.html

[DOF_power]

This is just a question of words. The F1 championship was established in 1950 but the fact is that for two years prior to this date the championship was already held (but not under F1 name) and was a constructors championship only.

What DOF is refering to is that until 1981 there were some events held with F1 cars but not counting for F1 championship (like the race of champions).

In any way believing that F1 is first and foremost a drivers championship is negating that you still have a constructor championship and that the first championship was even not a driver one.

As for drivers aids with automatic wings, i already expressed myself to pingguest so no need to put it again.

1950 saw the introduction of the World Championship, not the FIA F1 WDC.

Here's a quick explanation:

1950/51
World Championship = F1 championship races + Indy 500
F1 = F1 championship races + F1 non-championship races

1952/53
World Championship = F2 championship races (that's right Formula 2) + Indy 500
F1 = F1 non-championship races

1961-1980
World Championship = F1 championship races
F1 = F1 championship races + F1 non-championship races

1981
The World Championship is dead.

1981 FIA Yellow Book:

GENERAL REGULATIONS
1 -- In application of the decisions taken during the FIA Rio Congress of 15th April 1980, the FISA is organizing the new FIA Formula 1 World Championship from 1st January 1981. As a result, the old World Championship for Drivers is suppressed.

2 -- The new Formula 1 World Championship, which is the property of the FIA, will have 2 World Championship titles, one for Drivers and one for Constructors.