57 replies to this topic

[CountDooku]

I've always thought F1 should always be miles faster than any other circuit racing series out there. When the new cars came out in 2014, I was appalled that LMP1 and even GP2 were starting to post times that were worrying the F1 cars. Myself and other posters were moaning that the cars were visibly too slow. Fast forward 2 years and the cars are smashing all-time lap records!  

 

I was originally keen on the extra aero in the 2017 rules as last year, I thought the cars definitely needed to be faster. Now? I'm not so sure. Watching the cars now it's obvious that they are still lacking downforce on the 2010/11 cars but they are clearly making tons of time under acceleration and vmax. Slicks + fumes must help a ton too.

 

So wat do you think? Do the cars need any more outright pace designed into the new rules? Or should we leave things as is and let the cars develop that pace naturally? I would be happy to just give them the fatter tyres and leave the rest as is. 

[TheManAlive]

Are all these polls the forum  FIA's secret way of testing ideas out on fans?

 

For what it is worth, I am not fussed about the outright speed. Yes they need to be fast and a challenge so that not everyone can drive them. I'd rather they focused on helping with running in the dirty air, adding more downforce wont help that, what we need is mechanical grip.

[MortenF1]

Yes! Race pace should be much faster!

[johnmhinds]

The cars are more than fast enough during Qualifying when they have low fuel and full batteries.

 

It's the constant fuel saving and braking early to regenerate the battery that kills their race pace.

[Kev00]

I actually thought to myself during qualifying that these cars do not need to be any faster, and that's the first time I have thought it for a while. But they do need to tweak the cars to reduce the aerodynamic grip and increase mechanical grip.

[Marklar]

F1 is fast enough generally.

 

The only thing which bothers me is that the cars are looking 'slow' in the race, mostly because they are tyre saving. The corner speed could be a bit higher (more demanding for the driver).

 

Some might point out that the current cars are way too slow in the race compared to previous eras: unless you are reintroducing refuelling you can't do much about that, but I think durable tyres would solve this probably party anyway.

[Prost1997T]

The corner speed could be a bit higher (more demanding for the driver).

 

That usually makes it easier. Eau Rouge being one example.

[Okyo]

The very nature of the sport will always make it the fastest out there. No need for tempering with it.

[Marklar]

That usually makes it easier. Eau Rouge being one example.

Yep, driving wise the cars would be in some ways more easier to drive (what many people are forgetting in this discussion), but I was more refering to physically demanding (edit: and a bit more terrifying to drive  )

Edited by Marklar, 02 April 2016 - 20:08.

[Szoelloe]

Not faster. Wider.

[D1rtyHarry]

Yes. I think they should have removed all that fuel flow limit and rev limiting bollocks ages ago personally. In my opinion It would have given us much more competitive racing in the past 2 years, would have sped the cars up all-round and it would have really helped (and would still help) Renault/Honda to get closer to Mercedes/Ferrari because it would have meant that the hybrid technology would have played a lesser role in their dominance.

It should have been done at the end of 2014 and doubt it would have been that difficult, time consuming or costly to do. Now it's got to the current situation in F1 where it's only possible for the big engine manufacturers with collosal budgets in the hundreds of millions to win.

Edited by D1rtyHarry, 02 April 2016 - 20:15.

[CountDooku]

Are all these polls the forum FIA's secret way of testing ideas out on fans?

For what it is worth, I am not fussed about the outright speed. Yes they need to be fast and a challenge so that not everyone can drive them. I'd rather they focused on helping with running in the dirty air, adding more downforce wont help that, what we need is mechanical grip.

Unfortunately the FIA doesn't give a **** what fans think. I do though!

Out of interest, would you be okay with F1 being slower than LMP1 (but faster than GP2)?

[KingTiger]

No. Only race pace should be faster, but that should be improved by tires and possibly a higher fuel limit. Messing around with the wings like Red Bull want to is the wrong way to do it. 

[BlackCat]

making cars capable of higher max speed is quite meaningless with fuel limits and making tracks slower. remove all stupid chicanes and the speeds will be high enough.

[Laster]

I don't see what good it does. At five seconds a lap faster, you aren't really going to visually see the difference. I'd much rather they focused on getting the cars to be able to follow more closely together, which means working on mechanical grip, not aero. The more aero dependent these cars become, the more difficult it is to overtake. So I can only see this idea to make the cars five seconds a lap faster, will only cause more problems.

Also a race like Monza will get even shorter, which I don't like. I like the races to go on for at least an hour and a half.

Edited by Laster, 02 April 2016 - 21:00.

[DS27]

A new camera perspective is all they need to make the cars look fast enough instead of the rubbish they show us now.

[TomNokoe]

If we had proper race tyres I think they'd be atleast 2s a lap faster.

[Pingguest]

To easiest way to make the cars faster, is to increase downforce. That does make the cars physically more demanding, but technically the opposite.

[KavB]

I don't think we would really be able to tell if an F1 car is a couple seconds quicker. All it takes to give the impression of speed is better camera angles. MotoGP races look really fast but actually they are a lot slower than F1. Good camera work will do the trick. 

[AustinF1]

Quicker? No. 

 

Faster down the straights to increase braking distance? Yes.

 

 

I abstained from the vote as I fear a yes vote for "faster" could be misinterpreted as wanting more downforce and quicker lap times.

[AustinF1]

I don't think we would really be able to tell if an F1 car is a couple seconds quicker. All it takes to give the impression of speed is better camera angles. MotoGP races look really fast but actually they are a lot slower than F1. Good camera work will do the trick. 

"Slower", or not as quick?. MotoGP bikes hit higher top speeds on the straights than F1 cars do, but aren't nearly as quick in the twisties.

Edited by AustinF1, 02 April 2016 - 21:51.

[CountDooku]

Quicker? No.

Faster down the straights to increase braking distance? Yes.


I abstained from the vote as I fear a yes vote for "faster" could be misinterpreted as wanting more downforce and quicker lap times.

But hold on, these are some of the fastest F1 cars ever in a straight line.

[chhatra]

It's all about the sound.

The cars need to sound fast. Today Lewis broke the Bahrain track record yet it was missing the drama that could only come from a screaming engine in the back.

[Hati]

Speed doesn't matter if they can't race with the cars. And while everybody complain about tires I'm pretty sure that if the playing field were more level no one (at audience) had problems with them, it's hard to save tires if it means that someone will pass you.

[Archer]

No, because an increment in speed needs an increase in aero, and an increase in aero kills racing as a faster car can't follow a slower one to overtake. We all would love faster cars, but we all can remember the train races in early 2000's.

Edited by Archer, 03 April 2016 - 00:05.

[Wuzak]

The cars are more than fast enough during Qualifying when they have low fuel and full batteries.

 

It's the constant fuel saving and braking early to regenerate the battery that kills their race pace.

 

As stated by others, it is saving the tyres and having no fuel stops that makes race pace slow.

 

The fuel saving is not as constant as you suggest. Faster cars will make that worse, 

[Wuzak]

Yes. I think they should have removed all that fuel flow limit and rev limiting bollocks ages ago personally. In my opinion It would have given us much more competitive racing in the past 2 years, would have sped the cars up all-round and it would have really helped (and would still help) Renault/Honda to get closer to Mercedes/Ferrari because it would have meant that the hybrid technology would have played a lesser role in their dominance.

It should have been done at the end of 2014 and doubt it would have been that difficult, time consuming or costly to do. Now it's got to the current situation in F1 where it's only possible for the big engine manufacturers with collosal budgets in the hundreds of millions to win.

 

The flow limit caps power (and not a hard cap, as the differences between the four engines show) but doesn't affect race pace.

 

Mercedes are getting more from their ICE, so giving them all free fuel flow is unlikely to even the field. If anything, to get the same power the others would have to run higher fuel flow and therefore use more fuel and need to start the race with more fuel and/or fuel save more.

 

If the fuel flow limit was abolished the difference between qualifying and race pace could quite possibly be more. Because they could ramp the qualifying power up so much more.

 

What you really want is to remove the race fuel limit.

 

The rev limit has no bearing on these engines, as they rarely go to that high rpm, and only then if a driver was late in shifting.

[V8 Fireworks]

To easiest way to make the cars faster, is to increase downforce. That does make the cars physically more demanding, but technically the opposite.

 

Rubbish.

 

As Webber says a rookie should go "Phew! Strewth! I am not sure I am up to this".

 

ATM rookies say "F1 is easier than GP2" -- THAT is ridiculous.

[V8 Fireworks]

"No, because an increment in speed needs an increase in aero, and an increase in aero kills racing as a faster car can't follow a slower one to overtake. "

 

They can't overtake 

 

No, because an increment in speed needs an increase in aero, and an increase in aero kills racing as a faster car can't follow a slower one to overtake. We all would love faster cars, but we all can remember the train races in early 2000's.

AN

 

No, because an increment in speed needs an increase in aero, and an increase in aero kills racing as a faster car can't follow a slower one to overtake. We all would love faster cars, but we all can remember the train races in early 2000's.

 

 

 

No, because an increment in speed needs an increase in aero, and an increase in aero kills racing as a faster car can't follow a slower one to overtake. We all would love faster cars, but we all can remember the train races in early 2000's

 

They can't overtake ANYWAY. So let's have fast, spectacular cars and leave the close racing to other classes...

[HoldenRT]

It scares me to think that 50% of the people here don't seem to care about this.

 

No wonder F1 is in the state that it is in.

 

So what do people care about?  Branding?  (Ferrari, Mercedes etc)  Driver personalities?  (Kimi etc)  Or the country that their team and driver is from?  You could ignore everything else as long as it has these things?

 

The driver inside of the car is the core of the sport.  It's the glue that holds everything together.  And the car being a certain way is what makes F1 what it is.  And then having talented drivers being able to tame the beast and control that thing and win races with it.  And then.. (when everything is in place) the drivers are hyped but they deserve it.

 

There's no point caring about leadership, or greed or even silly qualifying systems if the driver and the car on track isn't given the biggest focus.  If you had an electric car going 100kph, it wouldn't matter what troll comment or politics Bernie says, or what silly qualifying gimmick you use to try and cover it up, it'd still fall flat.  To not even care about that.. makes me.... well.. shocked, to be honest.

 

I've been wondering in recent months who'd know best?  Everyone has their own opinions, sometimes they clash.  I thought that the drivers would most likely know best (funny coincidence given the last few weeks).. but not the current drivers.  The ex drivers.. maybe with some "communication" with the current drivers.

 

If you had a group of 5 or more ex drivers of the last 10 years, people with an understanding of the car/regs and a passion for the sport.. ex test drivers like Alex Wurz, who'd be willing to do it, as opposed to drivers like Kimi.  And if they communicated back and forth with the drivers.. and then presented a new set of regs or changes, I don't even know what they'd be.  But I'm pretty sure I'd like them more than anything said on this forum, or Charlie Whiting.. or especially Bernie or the manufacturer teams (business interests).

 

If F1 was 'fun' and the cars on track were stimulating.. more people would watch, you wouldn't need to charge so much in pay per view stuff.  There'd be more exposure, and therefore more sponsors.

 

Because it'd be focussing on the right areas that would make the racing great.  But then... after a few years, even if it was great.. FIA and the teams would probably change it and 'fix it'...

 

The racing and cars at the moment are "ok".. they aren't as bad as they probably will be in the future.  But they are loaded with gimmicks, current F1 has so many.  And all of these gimmicks are trying to compensate for the thing that I am talking about.  The thing that hopefully the ex drivers would know how to bring back.  It's not all about speed, but speed (and the driver working hard and being challenged constantly) is a part of it. 

Edited by HoldenRT, 03 April 2016 - 00:52.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

They could in theory re introduced refuelling without them using more fuel as they could still limit the total amount of race fuel allowed. (Like now 100kg) But it would be down to the teams to decide how much fuel to carry like the old days...

As the cars are lighter by doing that they naturally wouldn't need to fuel save as much and would also be faster it's a win-win?

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 03 April 2016 - 06:19.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

It's all about the sound.

The cars need to sound fast. Today Lewis broke the Bahrain track record yet it was missing the drama that could only come from a screaming engine in the back.

Some would disagree! I personally don't see how sound has anything to do the the time!

You (the fans who want more noise) would rather be slower with excessive noise, than have a lap like Hamilton's yesterday?

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 03 April 2016 - 06:25.

[GoldenColt]

A clear no. They are fast enough by now. Blowing V8 laptimes out of the water and beating V10 laptimes.

[hyperbolica]

More power, less downforce. Smaller wings. Max two wing elements front and rear, no silly winglets, flips, fences, barge boards, fillets, vortex generators, vents, bleeds and the rest of tabs, butts, flow directors, air managers, splitters, slats, flaps, kuchemann carrots and the lot. Single exit diffuser.

 

V8, V10, V12, whatever you like, of 3 liters, revving to 20k, hysterically screaming out of tuned exhaust pipes. No fiddling with engine maps during the race. Bring castor oil and blue smoke back, please. Motor racing should smell.

 

It's not only about speed. It's about noise and car control. You should hear the Doppler effect loud and clear when the car passes on the main straight. It should sound like the car drops from 25k to 10k revs. That's speed.

 

Cars revving only slightly higher than a family sedan, with muffled sound like a corporate limo, and then running like on rails, make F1 racing about as exciting as watching a surveillance camera on the I-95.

Edited by hyperbolica, 03 April 2016 - 06:46.

[PiperPa42]

It scares me to think that 50% of the people here don't seem to care about this.
 
No wonder F1 is in the state that it is in.
 
So what do people care about?  Branding?  (Ferrari, Mercedes etc)  Driver personalities?  (Kimi etc)  Or the country that their team and driver is from?  You could ignore everything else as long as it has these things?

I care about racing, not overall speed and whether or not they are faster than ever before. As long as they are faster than GP2 it's fine with me. I chose that option because t doesn't matter whether the cars get faster or not with the 2017 rules, but whether the rules improves close racing a proper overtaking.

If I anted to see faster and faster racing I'd watch NHRA.

Cars revving only slightly higher than a family sedan, with muffled sound like a corporate limo, and then running like on rails, make F1 racing about as exciting as watching a surveillance camera on the I-95.

Yes, 15000 rpm is only slightly higher than the redline of 6500 in my Impreza.

Edited by PiperPa42, 03 April 2016 - 06:40.

[hyperbolica]

Yes, 15000 rpm is only slightly higher than the redline of 6500 in my Impreza.

 

Exactly. When the car passes on the main straight, with today's relatively low revs, due to the Doppler effect it sounds like the revs drop to 6,000. That's even lower than your Impreza.

[Music Lover]

It's all about the sound.

The cars need to sound fast. Today Lewis broke the Bahrain track record yet it was missing the drama that could only come from a screaming engine in the back.

THIS!!!!!

[Music Lover]

Rubbish.

As Webber says a rookie should go "Phew! Strewth! I am not sure I am up to this".

ATM rookies say "F1 is easier than GP2" -- THAT is ridiculous.

And THIS!!!

F1 should be SPECIAL!
Sound like nothing else...be a challange to the driver that nothing else...be a technical challange to the technisians like nothing else...be spectacular to watch like norhing else...

SPECIAL!!!

[maverick69]

They should be able to race faster....... which means better tyers. Because, as far as I'm told, the total/combined power output is approaching the 1000bhp mark now.

 

As I've said a fair few times - I'd like the cars to have the aerodynamic philosophy of the CART superspeedway racers of the mid to late 90's....... but with bigger tyers.

 

But that's never going to happen. F1 seems obsessed with polishing one turd after the other....... which is ok if you can afford it - and you don't mind the smell of ****.

[Music Lover]

Some would disagree! I personally don't see how sound has anything to do the the time!

You (the fans who want more noise) would rather be slower with excessive noise, than have a lap like Hamilton's yesterday?

Hint: a loud object seems to be faster than a silent one...

[Wuzak]

Bring castor oil and blue smoke back, please. Motor racing should smell.

 

Don't need to bring back castor oil. They already smell.

[SonJR]

Echo the sentiments of many here:

Race pace should be higher, less emphasis on saving tyres/fuel.

Cornering speed increase would be nice.

Would like to see them more on edge, rather than planted. To add to the sensory impressiveness: better sound still.

Less focus on front generated aero, plus more mechanical grip as to follow others more closely.

[Music Lover]

A clear no. They are fast enough by now. Blowing V8 laptimes out of the water and beating V10 laptimes.

First, let's check the laptimes in the race...

Then, on pair with 15-20 years old technology is nothing special - how much faster is everything else today!!!

Another example:
When a family estate car hit 100km/h in 14s and the VERY fast GTI in 10s, THEN F1 was fast!
Now we looking at 8s for a normal company car, and the fast GTI make it in 5-6s...

Edited by Music Lover, 03 April 2016 - 07:47.

[Treads]

Rubbish.

 

As Webber says a rookie should go "Phew! Strewth! I am not sure I am up to this".

 

ATM rookies say "F1 is easier than GP2" -- THAT is ridiculous.

 

Agreed. 

 

No disrespect to the kid, but Max Verstappen should not have been able to hold his head straight in an F1 car when he made his debut. That he could means it is not demanding enough. The downforce on these cars should make them impossible to drive for the general population and hellishly difficult to drive for teenage rookies. (IMO) 

[Treads]

"No, because an increment in speed needs an increase in aero, and an increase in aero kills racing as a faster car can't follow a slower one to overtake. "

 

 

They can't overtake ANYWAY. So let's have fast, spectacular cars and leave the close racing to other classes...

 

Nah, not true. They can overtake. There are ways to make them overtake. And ways to set up the aero to make it easier to overtake. 

In 2008, they had trouble running within 1.5 or 2 seconds of each other. From 2009, that went to 0.6-0.8 seconds. Overtaking right now is totally possible (especially with DRS - different story). The reason we don't get too much is that the fastest cars start up front and the slower behind. So, naturally there's no overtaking. 

[Jonnycraig37]

F1 has a million and one issues asides from the speed.

[FPV GTHO]

I voted no. I see outright pace representative as the qualifying pace. Even with the race pace being significantly slower, that won't change with no refuelling but I'd prefer to see that stay than have strategies locked on by fuel levels. If something has to change, get aero so the cars don't lose as much performance so the plastic tyres can go.

[Hati]

It scares me to think that 50% of the people here don't seem to care about this.

And what is even more scary is that almost 50% of people seem to think that you can fix F1 with more speed while lack of speed isn't one of its problems.

 

Lets start worrying about noise, speed etc after basics are fixed. When qualifying is fixed and cars can follow each other all around the track we may worry about secondary things. And flying pigs, it seems.

[Kucki]

More important thing is to have more power then downforce.

[FPV GTHO]

More important thing is to have more power then downforce.

How exactly would you quantify that?