36 replies to this topic

[ivanalesi]

While I was having lunch with friend at home, the dvd had a GP2 Asia race. The guy isn't really into racing, but still has some knowledge of F1.
When there were shots from the onboard camera, he said these cars seem to be so much harder to drive and it's much more fun than the boring F1 cockpit. He had the impression from watching it's easier to drive F1 than GP2. I had to explain to him about downforce and blah blah blah, but at the end of the day he had a valid point - w/o powersteering GP2 looks a lot harder and lot more FUN!
So why don't we ban powersteering? Without it, we will also see more mistake -> more overtaking!
What do you think?

[Scotracer]

I fail to see why Powersteering would make a big difference. There are too many factors about GP2 cars over F1 cars to make a direct comparison like that. F1 cars are thoroughbreds and GP2 cars are off-the-shelf racers. I bet the GP2 car will be more agricultural to drive.

[JLH]

You would have absolutely no hope of driving a modern F1 car without power steering. The downforce levels plus the self aligning torque of the tyres would require a weigthlifting gorilla to drive it.

[primer]

I fail to see why Powersteering would make a big difference. There are too many factors about GP2 cars over F1 cars to make a direct comparison like that. F1 cars are thoroughbreds and GP2 cars are off-the-shelf racers. I bet the GP2 car will be more agricultural to drive.

This goes against everything former GP2 drivers who have moved into F1 say about GP2 cars. Generally they are all praise about their former series' cars, often commenting on the similarity in handling and operation, only F1 being somewhat quicker over a lap (and with more controls on the boss). The difference in laptimes between the two series is not that great either.

As for banning powersteering, we do not know how much assist is provided by hydraulics. Even with a powersteering these cars may require a lot of physical effort to steer. Before eliminating PS it might be a good idea to change the minimum dimensions of the tub. Men can hardly fit into these cars anymore.

[V8 Fireworks]

You would have absolutely no hope of driving a modern F1 car without power steering. The downforce levels plus the self aligning torque of the tyres would require a weigthlifting gorilla to drive it.

Didn't Minardi - or specifically Yoong - race without power steering for part of 02 season?

Forza Minardi!: The Inside Story of the Little Team Which Took on the Giants p 81 (Google Books)

[Dmitriy_Guller]

You would have absolutely no hope of driving a modern F1 car without power steering. The downforce levels plus the self aligning torque of the tyres would require a weigthlifting gorilla to drive it.

I doubt it. If the cars right this moment can't be driven without power steering, then it's more due to them being designed with power steering in mind (more aggressive caster and things like that). Cars were driven just fine without power steering ten years ago.

[Grumbles]

You would have absolutely no hope of driving a modern F1 car without power steering. The downforce levels plus the self aligning torque of the tyres would require a weigthlifting gorilla to drive it.

And that's exactly what F1 needs! Steroid crazed gorillas at the controls would certainly spice things up a bit..

[JLH]

10 years ago, lol. Hence why I said modern. The cars today are nothing like they were 10 years ago, if you hadn't noticed. Suspension setup has little to do with it compared to the two I already mentioned.

Yes, Minardi and even Sauber (and maybe a few others) were running manual steering up to about 2002-2003. But then the tyre war took off, and all of a sudden they needed 2 and 3 times the steering effort.

[gruntguru]

10 years ago, lol. Hence why I said modern. The cars today are nothing like they were 10 years ago, if you hadn't noticed. Suspension setup has little to do with it compared to the two I already mentioned.

Yes, Minardi and even Sauber (and maybe a few others) were running manual steering up to about 2002-2003. But then the tyre war took off, and all of a sudden they needed 2 and 3 times the steering effort.

Oh well - if they slowed the ratio by 2 - 3 times, the effort would come back down and we would see some arm action in the cockpit - just like the good old days.

[Ogami musashi]

When you step up in everything related to machinery, the faster/more agile/more powerfull machinery is always easier to handle because the goal is for you to employ it, in this case to actually race and drive at the fastest speed.

For that you need to be subtle, and you can't be subtle if you have to fight your car to stay on the track.

See jarno turlli recent interview about nascar, he said in the car you have much more thing to worry about than in an F1 car, but that you have all the time needed to work it out and you can do it the big way.

It works the same in fighter jets for example...

No problem for me but i do agree this reduces overtaking as differencies between drivers are smaller.

But imho, F1 is about pilotage, not car control, or else there's no need for F1 to be that fast.

A last word on F1 rookies from GP2: Lewis hamilton said that when he graduated in F1 that GP2 is harder to drive and more physical, until he corrected some months later in top gear that in fact driving an F1 car was so violent that he thinks it is more physical than GP2 especially has you needed to be very aggressive in F1 (because of subtle corrections), he mentionned the cars literally flying over kerbs and that you had to control them.

Edited by Ogami musashi, 20 November 2009 - 12:28.

[MikeTekRacing]

we already see a shift towards kids in f1
i wouldn't want to male their job even easier and give them a huge physical advantage
it's not wrestling

Edited by MikeTekRacing, 20 November 2009 - 14:33.

[ivanalesi]

Haha, yeah it would be against the trend
I thought about the physical aspects before posting and I remember Sauber in 2004 had no powersteering at the start of the season. Of course it made it harder for them to drive and Massa was vocal about it, but Fisico never said anything. Massa thought that with new tyres in qualy it was very hard for him to be precise, still they were competitive in the mid-field and scored points.

[JLH]

Haha, yeah it would be against the trend
I thought about the physical aspects before posting and I remember Sauber in 2004 had no powersteering at the start of the season. Of course it made it harder for them to drive and Massa was vocal about it, but Fisico never said anything. Massa thought that with new tyres in qualy it was very hard for him to be precise, still they were competitive in the mid-field and scored points.

Sauber were running variable ratio as a way to prolong the use of a manual gear, but even this wasn't enough and they soon had to go to power assist. By midway through 2005, the assist levels were up in most teams about 3 times.

[Canuck]

You haven't actually stated why the ban wouldn't work, only why it's not necessarily compatible with the car of today. So they have to re-address steering efforts - big deal. Having said that, I don't know if such a ban would make the racing less boring to watch or not.

[JLH]

The question was, "why not ban powersteering?". The answer is, you couldn't drive the car of today without it, so it would be pointless.

It would also in fact be a massive deal to redress steering effort.

And even if somehow the cars were in fact completely redesigned to remove power steering, what is the evidence to suggest it would mean more mistakes and more overtaking? Drivers would simply learn to adjust.

[Canuck]

Your first answer is wrong - that the cars would be undrivable in their present condition without powersteering is not reason to keep it. They've removed active suspension, launch control, traction control and by extension any ESC. Surely you don't think the post-ban cars were otherwise identical with only the specific items on question removed? I suspect the effort and expense in extending the lifespan of the engine under the new rules required more effort and expense than would the removal of powersteering. What kind of argument is "it's too hard" anyway?

Your last paragraph was exactly what I said in my last sentence - a ban might be pointless in terms of it's effects on the actual racing.

[Powersteer]

I didn't do anything wrong.

[Tony Matthews]

That doesn't mean you shouldn't be banned.

[GeorgeTheCar]

[Quote] No problem for me but i do agree this reduces overtaking as differencies between drivers are smaller. [Quote]

Stupid me, I am still trying to figure this out!

Edited by GeorgeTheCar, 22 November 2009 - 18:32.

[Greg Locock]

I think we should go back to a Lemans start if the physical fitness of the driver is such an important part of the equation. Might be the most exciting part of the race.

[Wuzak]

I think we should go back to a Lemans start if the physical fitness of the driver is such an important part of the equation. Might be the most exciting part of the race.

Would a "driver assistant" be required to help do up the belts?

[Greg Locock]

Would a "driver assistant" be required to help do up the belts?

Yeah, get a grid-babe to do it. Oh, F1 doesn't have grid-babes. More fool them.

[DOF_power]

Your first answer is wrong - that the cars would be undrivable in their present condition without powersteering is not reason to keep it. They've removed active suspension, launch control, traction control and by extension any ESC. Surely you don't think the post-ban cars were otherwise identical with only the specific items on question removed? I suspect the effort and expense in extending the lifespan of the engine under the new rules required more effort and expense than would the removal of powersteering. What kind of argument is "it's too hard" anyway?

Your last paragraph was exactly what I said in my last sentence - a ban might be pointless in terms of it's effects on the actual racing.

Ban this, ban that. It won't improve the racing.
Probably things will get even worse and the cars, supposedly the pinnacle, would be even dumber.

Edited by DOF_power, 23 November 2009 - 09:39.

[DOF_power]

They banned the electronics in 94 and overtaking went down, they banned them again in 2007 and (dry weather) overtaking again went down.
Drivers said that things got worse when they banned the electronics because the cars were less stable and more sensitive to both dirty air and the dirty/non-rubber line parts of the tracks.

Just how much more does overtaking need to be reduced for some people to be satisfied ?!

Edited by DOF_power, 23 November 2009 - 09:44.

[Ogami musashi]

Stupid me, I am still trying to figure this out!

Since it refers to me:

I mean, Car control (that is, preventing the car from over/under steering and slip in acceleration) oriented skills means that the good drivers actually stay on the track, the others lose a lot of time sliding, under/over steering.

Modern open wheeler turn where you want them to turn, you have far less things to bother about. The consequence is that the differencies between drivers are made on the racing lines and their aggressiveness (how late they brake, how well they re-accelerates). This alone makes that lap time delta between drivers is far less. Second effect is speed; since your car does what you want you can push it toward the limit and the car will go faster: this also means the lap time delta will be smaller.

Just take a typical formula renault 2.0 or a FR 3.5 qualifying delta between the first and last driver:

Le mans 2009:

FR 2.0: best time in qualifying: 1:35:380. Last time 1:37:770
FR .35 best time in qualifying 1:26:180 last time: 1:19: 180

And now take around the same track the same day, the megane trophy:

Best time: 1:41:053 last time 1:53:800


The open wheeler are much easier to control that the trophy car and it show in deltas.


Coming from that, it is obvious overtaking is harder.

and when the field is full of drivers of near equivalent skills like in F1 you better understand the trick.

[DOF_power]

The quality of the drivers plays a lot in those series.
I've seen some drivers in these lower series who just don't seem to learn anything nor adapt at all.

[ivanalesi]

Damn, I shouldn't have mentioned overtaking, you're "steering" the conversation more towards overtaking.
The main reason for my idea was the excitement when you watch from onboard camera. When you watch F1 onboard, everything is so smooth and precise, while when you watch GP2 - they are visibly fighting for control of the car. It's more exciting.
Many people believe, especially in my country, that rally driving is far more physical and more complicated, thus rally drivers are far better drivers than racing drivers.
I shouldn't have mentioned overtaking, I'm not sure what the hell would improve it!

[JLH]

Your first answer is wrong - that the cars would be undrivable in their present condition without powersteering is not reason to keep it. They've removed active suspension, launch control, traction control and by extension any ESC. Surely you don't think the post-ban cars were otherwise identical with only the specific items on question removed? I suspect the effort and expense in extending the lifespan of the engine under the new rules required more effort and expense than would the removal of powersteering. What kind of argument is "it's too hard" anyway?

Your last paragraph was exactly what I said in my last sentence - a ban might be pointless in terms of it's effects on the actual racing.

I add this only because you insist on it. The answer is not wrong, just that you've interpreted the question uniquely. He could just as easily have said we should ban rear wings to improve overtaking and the answer would have been also a no. Clearly we all understand that cars can be redesigned to suit the rules, but that wasn't what I interpreted the original poster to be asking.

As to your second point, do you know how much downforce you'd need to remove off the cars so that a manual steering car would have similar steering effort to a 2009 car?

[Ogami musashi]

Damn, I shouldn't have mentioned overtaking, you're "steering" the conversation more towards overtaking.
The main reason for my idea was the excitement when you watch from onboard camera. When you watch F1 onboard, everything is so smooth and precise, while when you watch GP2 - they are visibly fighting for control of the car. It's more exciting.
Many people believe, especially in my country, that rally driving is far more physical and more complicated, thus rally drivers are far better drivers than racing drivers.
I shouldn't have mentioned overtaking, I'm not sure what the hell would improve it!

I'm sorry i was just replying to georgesthecar.

I just said the fact F1 cars were easier to control was on purpose, It was well illustrated by brundle when he took a 92 benetton and a F2000. The F2000 was much easier to drive hence brundle saying he could concentrate on the actual driving rather than keeping the house.

Your remark about rallying is interesting, Loeb said what prevented him to do F1 was fitness..and he's a former gymnast.

So what is important? What is the reality or what people think?

In other words, what are we looking for in watching F1? The actual sport technical specificities or the hollywood effect of a racing driver struggling to keep his car on track?

[DOF_power]

Damn, I shouldn't have mentioned overtaking, you're "steering" the conversation more towards overtaking.
The main reason for my idea was the excitement when you watch from onboard camera. When you watch F1 onboard, everything is so smooth and precise, while when you watch GP2 - they are visibly fighting for control of the car. It's more exciting.
Many people believe, especially in my country, that rally driving is far more physical and more complicated, thus rally drivers are far better drivers than racing drivers.
I shouldn't have mentioned overtaking, I'm not sure what the hell would improve it!

Go watch Clark on youtube in the 1.5 litre cars; warning, he was just as smooth and there was no sliding around.

[Greg Locock]

As to your second point, do you know how much downforce you'd need to remove off the cars so that a manual steering car would have similar steering effort to a 2009 car?

I wouldn't reduce the downforce as that is a primary factor in the performance of the car. I'd rejig the suspension geometry, reduce the trail and castor, reduce kingpin angle etc before touching downforce.

Since we don't know how much assistance the PAS gives your question is a bit unanswerable.

[Fat Boy]

I wouldn't reduce the downforce as that is a primary factor in the performance of the car. I'd rejig the suspension geometry, reduce the trail and castor, reduce kingpin angle etc before touching downforce.

I'm sorry Greg, that is a technical answer. This is the rabid fan-boy forum and as such, we will have no technical discussions of this sort.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here's your answer you freakin' idiots....power steering just makes the driver's job a little easier, it doesn't matter a hill of beans in the overall raceability of an F-1 car. Yes, the cars are built to take advantage of the addition of power steering, but if it were dropped tomorrow you'd see the exact same cars in the exact same order travelling only a fraction of a second slower. Sorry, if power steering was the holy F-in grail, it'd already be gone.

It amazes me as how stupid you all must think that the inhabitants of F-1 must be.

[Canuck]

I only said it was possible, not smart or worthwhile. You big meanie.
;)

[Greg Locock]

I still want the LeMans start and gridbabes. You meanies.

[DaveW]

...power steering just makes the driver's job a little easier, it doesn't matter a hill of beans in the overall raceability of an F-1 car.

Curiously, I suspect removing power steering might improve the raceability of an F1 car.

I have watched front spring stiffness rise inexorably in F1 over the past 10 years. I suspect to control front (wing) ride height ever more accurately & also to allow the adoption of strange front geometries, again for aerodynamic reasons. The problem is that a kart front requires kart handling solutions, which increases steering loads. Hence power steering. A downside could well be a less stable car even in a straight line when downforce is reduced, making it difficult to "draft" another vehicle closely. Removing power steering would hit the reset button for suspension set-up (as Greg suggested). This might, ultimately, result in closer racing & more overtaking (like GP2).

[Fat Boy]

I still want the LeMans start and gridbabes. You meanies.

Who was it that wanted to run a lap of the entire circuit instead of just across the road at Lemans?

[Canuck]

Who was it that wanted to run a lap of the entire circuit instead of just across the road at Lemans?