143 replies to this topic

[ARTGP]

Oh dear. Well I didn't know you were haunting for a conclusive answer. If you want that, then here is the following..
I am of the opinion that the asphalt used in Turkey, was not the correct one. It was too slippery compared to asphalts that are used at other tracks being used by Formula One. It caused an artificial competition who danced around the track of eggshells the best. Which was pathetic really. It had nothing to do with racing and it should be prevented in the future at every cost.

 

So you are of the opinion that wet races should be prevented in the future at every cost?

 

Where were you after Hockenheim last year?

Edited by ARTGP, 20 November 2020 - 19:06.

[SPBHM]

more variable grip and track surface could have some good impact,

if all tracks are like Turkey's surface the team will just adapt and optimize for that in the end.

 

F1 needs to be less predictable, I'm all in for more radical rule changes more often, with the budget cap the excuse against is gone anyway.

and it could involve tracks when possible.

[cpbell]

I see your point, but disagree with the comparison. I am not denigrating anybody. It's like saying I am denigrating cars of the 60s for having poor brakes. That was the technology at that point. I am not denigrating F1 drivers back then for not being perfect athletes as they are today...

same with trackside ops. The world has changed a lot in the mean time, and teams realized that investing in using science with data brings a lot of return. 

The 2020 cars require an infinite amount of settings compared to the 1970s cars and are built for a different purpose under some assumptions. Remove all data predictions and everything? Surely that will lead to luck more than knowledge with the 2020 cars.

 

Give them time to design cars that operate under those assumptions and they'll nail them and we're back to "normal". 

Point take, but the "new normal" would be less predictable and more open to human genius and weakness than the souless, simulator-honed, data-led approach.

[LucaP]

It would be absurd to change surface for a series that runs 3 days a year on a certain track..

What about the other 362 days in which the track still operates?

[Imperial]

It would be absurd to change surface for a series that runs 3 days a year on a certain track..

What about the other 362 days in which the track still operates?

Like for the all the national series, for which basically nobody turns up to the track or watches on TV?

[Mark521]

Turkey was the "perfect storm" for track conditions, which as BBLF pointed out, probably won't happen for another 10+ years (with the slight possibility of a wet and sandy Bahrain).

Which track is going to resurface every year two weeks before F1 shows up?  Using that "cheap asphalt". Oh, and hold their race when it's pretty cold.  And when it rains.

I am sure we would have a completely different race if we went back to Turkey next summer.  This year's race was an aberration and even if the powers to be wanted this, it would cost too much to replicate.

 

*edit - BBLF was BLBF, sorry 

Edited by Mark521, 21 November 2020 - 14:29.

[Pingguest]

the only way forward is to fix the cars aero.  Anything else is a band-aid that doesn't address the root cause of the problem. 

 

You are absolutely right. Introduce an entirely flat bottom, low-nose cone and reduce wings to a rear and front wing with each only having a single element. That would also allow the legislator to open-up the regulations in other areas.

[Rodaknee]

You are absolutely right. Introduce an entirely flat bottom, low-nose cone and reduce wings to a rear and front wing with each only having a single element. That would also allow the legislator to open-up the regulations in other areas.

Isn't this what Ross Brawn was claiming would open up F1 for more overtaking?

 

We're still waiting.

[Kalmake]

Isn't this what Ross Brawn was claiming would open up F1 for more overtaking?

 

We're still waiting.

No, it's Pingguest own theory I think. Brawn too will reduce the number of elements in the wings, but not to one. For the floor he is going with tunnels.

[Beri]

So you are of the opinion that wet races should be prevented in the future at every cost?

Where were you after Hockenheim last year?

Most likely on my sofa. But reading something is hard when you do not want to read the things being said.

But hey, have a splendid weekend!

[ARTGP]

Most likely on my sofa. But reading something is hard when you do not want to read the things being said.

But hey, have a splendid weekend!

 

 

Beri, on 20 Nov 2020 - 12:01, said:

Oh dear. Well I didn't know you were haunting for a conclusive answer. If you want that, then here is the following..
I am of the opinion that the asphalt used in Turkey, was not the correct one. It was too slippery compared to asphalts that are used at other tracks being used by Formula One. It caused an artificial competition who danced around the track of eggshells the best. Which was pathetic really. It had nothing to do with racing and it should be prevented in the future at every cost.

 

There was no safety car in Turkey. And several in Germany last year. But Turkey is the race that "must be prevented in the future at all cost"   and Hockenheim is okay.  Of course that's nonsense. Both tracks were acceptable for racing.

Edited by ARTGP, 21 November 2020 - 20:10.

[PayasYouRace]

You are absolutely right. Introduce an entirely flat bottom, low-nose cone and reduce wings to a rear and front wing with each only having a single element. That would also allow the legislator to open-up the regulations in other areas.

 

No. That's wrong. Flat bottoms and single element wings are the most aero sensitive to turbulent wakes. What you want is ground effect tunnels that are less sensitive to turbulent wakes, and at least a flap on the wing for adjustability and to help prevent them stalling.

 

Tired of saying this.

[ExFlagMan]

No. That's wrong. Flat bottoms and single element wings are the most aero sensitive to turbulent wakes. What you want is ground effect tunnels that are less sensitive to turbulent wakes, and at least a flap on the wing for adjustability and to help prevent them stalling.

 

Tired of saying this.

 

Bring back porpoising...

[CoolBreeze]

The problem fifth current F1 is that it's just too perfect. They need everything to be perfect, and the drivers don't complain. In terms of aero, it's a complete disaster in F1. The cars cannot follow each other in the dry, and need that stupid push to pass button. 

 

The tyres, well Pirelli should retire from F1 for good. The Turkish performance was outrageous. They can't seem to build wet/inters and even proper dry tyres. For me, F1 will definitely slowly die, because everything is just so predictable. Just look how everyone craved after the Turkish GP quali. That's the unpredictability that's missing in F1. 

 

Unfortunately for us, the FIA are run by a bunch of morons, so I do not see any improvements till the death of F1. 

[pdac]

...

Unfortunately for us, the FIA are run by a bunch of morons, so I do not see any improvements till the death of F1. 

 

Unfortunately, this is the widespread perception that people have. I would say the FIA and all involved in F1 know exactly what needs to be done and how to achieve it. But they don't care too much. They all like things to stay essentially the same. Then their lives are easier.

 

They are happy with the pecking order, except for the teams right at the bottom. Every team would like to be that little bit further up the grid (excluding Mercedes, obviously), but they all want to stay ahead of those who are behind them. So the teams are not really interested in changing anything.

 

Liberty care about the money. As long as it's rolling in, why change things. You might end up damaging the income. So they have no real interest in changing anything.

 

And the FIA are in the middle. But they are all about politics. They are just interested in ensuring that no one takes the p*ss too much, but otherwise, it's easier for them not to upset the apple cart.

 

But, of course, they will pay lip service to the voices of fans, commentators and pundits because they can set up committees that they can all sit on themselves and pay themselves more money and have more jollies.

 

They are not fools at all. They are just not interested in changing what works well for them.

[chhatra]

No.

 

Less downforce, less practice and limiting development budgets should do it. 

[Pingguest]

No. That's wrong. Flat bottoms and single element wings are the most aero sensitive to turbulent wakes. What you want is ground effect tunnels that are less sensitive to turbulent wakes, and at least a flap on the wing for adjustability and to help prevent them stalling.

 

Tired of saying this.

 

Could you prove if that, for example, a Lotus 72 had more trouble with overtaking than the future "ground effect"-cars will have? Please try.

[Kalmake]

Could you prove if that, for example, a Lotus 72 had more trouble with overtaking than the future "ground effect"-cars will have? Please try.

Reduce current cars to power that 72 had, and there wouldn't be much trouble overtaking. They wouldn't run nearly as much draggy, dirty downforce.

[PayasYouRace]

Could you prove if that, for example, a Lotus 72 had more trouble with overtaking than the future "ground effect"-cars will have? Please try.

 

The thing about a Lotus 72 and similar cars from the time was that they produced very little downforce and they did it very crudely. So, they didn't lose much downforce following because they weren't producing a lot in the first place. But, as the saying goes, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. A modern car developed to a ruleset drawn up around the fundamental basic concept of the 72 would be much more refined, producing a lot more downforce and doing it in a very sensitive way.

 

That's why using the ground effect should be better. This is shown in other series such as F2, Super Formula, Indycar, etc. Like it or not F1 has a certain expectation of performance, and going back to the very low downforce levels of the early 1970s is not going to be acceptable. There were complaints back in 2014 when the cars dropped back to mid-90s levels of performance that the cars were too slow.

 

Of course, your question is unfair, because we don't know how difficult the future ground effect cars will find overtaking. They shouldn't find it too hard, but at least we need to see how it will go.

[pdac]

The thing about a Lotus 72 and similar cars from the time was that they produced very little downforce and they did it very crudely. So, they didn't lose much downforce following because they weren't producing a lot in the first place. But, as the saying goes, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. A modern car developed to a ruleset drawn up around the fundamental basic concept of the 72 would be much more refined, producing a lot more downforce and doing it in a very sensitive way.

 

That's why using the ground effect should be better. This is shown in other series such as F2, Super Formula, Indycar, etc. Like it or not F1 has a certain expectation of performance, and going back to the very low downforce levels of the early 1970s is not going to be acceptable. There were complaints back in 2014 when the cars dropped back to mid-90s levels of performance that the cars were too slow.

 

Of course, your question is unfair, because we don't know how difficult the future ground effect cars will find overtaking. They shouldn't find it too hard, but at least we need to see how it will go.

 

Playing devils advocate here, but just because people complain does not mean that it cannot be pushed through. People always complain when something that they are used to changes - especially when they feel that the new version is inferior to what they had before. But it's been proven time and time again that once the 'old' one is taken away, they quickly stop complaining and just accept the 'new'. So, in practice as well as theory, I think it is possible to go back to the 1970's. Whether that should happen is a different question.

[PayasYouRace]

Playing devils advocate here, but just because people complain does not mean that it cannot be pushed through. People always complain when something that they are used to changes - especially when they feel that the new version is inferior to what they had before. But it's been proven time and time again that once the 'old' one is taken away, they quickly stop complaining and just accept the 'new'. So, in practice as well as theory, I think it is possible to go back to the 1970's. Whether that should happen is a different question.

 

But do you think it would be acceptable for Formula 1, which is by definition supposed to be the highest performance single-seater formula, to go back to such a low performance level? Do you think it is reasonable for it to drag all it's affiliated series with it (F2, F3, F4)? Do you think the non-affiliated competitors like Indycar should go back 50 years in performance too? Or should F1 just become a comically slow world championship by modern standards?

[pdac]

But do you think it would be acceptable for Formula 1, which is by definition supposed to be the highest performance single-seater formula, to go back to such a low performance level? Do you think it is reasonable for it to drag all it's affiliated series with it (F2, F3, F4)? Do you think the non-affiliated competitors like Indycar should go back 50 years in performance too? Or should F1 just become a comically slow world championship by modern standards?

 

Like I said - that's a different question.

 

If you force an answer out of me, then I would say that I think there's a lot of merit in pegging F1 back a few years. How many? I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure that going as far back as the 70's might be a bit of overkill.

[PayasYouRace]

Like I said - that's a different question.

 

If you force an answer out of me, then I would say that I think there's a lot of merit in pegging F1 back a few years. How many? I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure that going as far back as the 70's might be a bit of overkill.

 

But it is the question, or rather the suggestion, that Pingguest is posing.

[Risil]

No. That's wrong. Flat bottoms and single element wings are the most aero sensitive to turbulent wakes. What you want is ground effect tunnels that are less sensitive to turbulent wakes, and at least a flap on the wing for adjustability and to help prevent them stalling.

 

Tired of saying this.

Put it in your sig!

[pdac]

But it is the question, or rather the suggestion, that Pingguest is posing.

 

Okay then. If I had only the choice of what we have now or what we had in the 70's, then I think I'd go for the 70's.

[Risil]

It wouldn't have been the 70s if you'd told Colin Chapman, Gordon Murray et al that they weren't allowed to try and put more power and grip on their cars because they wouldn't like where it led.

[Sterzo]

It wouldn't have been the 70s if you'd told Colin Chapman, Gordon Murray et al that they weren't allowed to try and put more power and grip on their cars because they wouldn't like where it led.

Motor racing contains the seeds of its own destruction, in that competitors are driven to reduce lap time at any cost, and some of the effects are detrimental to an enjoyable sport. I don't want to go back to the seventies or any other previous period. But F1 is approaching the point where its speed is destroying circuits (ludo boards only), its technical development is making costs unsustainable, and its aerodynamic sophistication is diminishing close racing.

 

History gives us only one lesson: that things can be different. So lets make them different again, bite the bullet, grasp the nettle (and other cliches) and construct a sport which emphasises close racing and on track battles, if necessary by sacrificing speed and technical progress.

[Beri]

Reduce current cars to power that 72 had, and there wouldn't be much trouble overtaking. They wouldn't run nearly as much draggy, dirty downforce.

Let's do that and follow this up with going back to steel brakes. That would already help a lot.

[Risil]

Reduce current cars to power that 72 had, and there wouldn't be much trouble overtaking. They wouldn't run nearly as much draggy, dirty downforce.

 

Wouldn't we end up with something similar to current Formula 3?

[Beri]

Wouldn't we end up with something similar to current Formula 3?

I think the FIA will always limit the speeds of their other classes to keep Formula One the fastest class under their reign.

Edited by Beri, 23 November 2020 - 10:49.

[Risil]

What are they going to replace F3 with? Lawnmowers?

[Sterzo]

Wouldn't we end up with something similar to current Formula 3?

Great! We could run it on fabulous circuits like Brands and Oulton and see terrific racing between the best drivers in the world. Or maybe we could head for a half-way house, where the cars are only part standardised and the performance given a little more leeway.

[Beri]

What are they going to replace F3 with? Lawnmowers?

Can be quite spectacular..

[Risil]

Great! We could run it on fabulous circuits like Brands and Oulton and see terrific racing between the best drivers in the world. Or maybe we could head for a half-way house, where the cars are only part standardised and the performance given a little more leeway.

 

Looking at the formula for CART in the mid-1990s, it should be possible to design F1 cars with similar power and weight to today, but with much better ability to race each other.

 

I think the key is simplifying aero, introducing venturi tunnels (uncontroversial in Indycar) and hopefully doing something to reduce the effect of modern suspensions which reproduce the effect of active ride and make the cars much less dramatic at high speed. No idea if that can be done by writing a different rulebook, or whether standardization of parts would be necessary.

[Beri]

I do get tired of people that cast standardization aside as "it isn't in F1s DNA". Like Hewland gearboxes weren't used by 80% of the field during the 70s and 80s? Like Brembo didn't supply the entire braking system for 90% of the teams in the 90s? Like the ECU used these days isn't produced by McLaren?

Standardization is part of F1.

[cpbell]

I do get tired of people that cast standardization aside as "it isn't in F1s DNA". Like Hewland gearboxes weren't used by 80% of the field during the 70s and 80s? Like Brembo didn't supply the entire braking system for 90% of the teams in the 90s? Like the ECU used these days isn't produced by McLaren?

Standardization is part of F1.

Point taken.

[lustigson]

If it's only about low grip, give the cars wooden tyres.

[Risil]

If it's only about low grip, give the cars wooden tyres.

Wooden rackets for the tennis pros, wooden tyres for Grand Prix cars. All the problems of modern sports solved! Maybe there could be a bulk purchase.

[Beri]

Wooden rackets for the tennis pros, wooden tyres for Grand Prix cars. All the problems of modern sports solved! Maybe there could be a bulk purchase.

But to club all those poor trees to death is just sad

[Risil]

But to club all those poor trees to death is just sad

Yes but that will be offset by all the trees they can replant at Monza now that corner speeds are 10mph

[Beri]

Yes but that will be offset by all the trees they can replant at Monza now that corner speeds are 10mph

 

Id vote for!

[Pimpwerx]

No, and I was in favor of the sprinkler idea. The sprinkler idea at least sticks to the fundamentals of F1, and just designates a specific race as mixed-to-wet conditions. It is only a gimmick in so far as you'll have a wet track when there is no rain, but it just throws a controlled variable into the mix. A track surface like Turkey's is a gimmick in that those conditions are completely unnatural. Short of snow, you never see a track surface that slippery. No amount of tire choice was giving the cars the kind of grip and control that they would expect under any racing weather condition. I don't like it. I want to see the cars go fast. If it was just a regular wet weekend, with normal levels of grip, I wouldn't have any issue. However, despite my guy winning, I did not take away much joy from seeing cars slide around an ice rink.

[HeadFirst]

Low grip circuits? Lance Stroll WDC???? 

[pdac]

What are they going to replace F3 with? Lawnmowers?

 

It doesn't matter. I'm sure the viewing audience for F3 is a tiny tiny fraction of that of F1. What does it really matter even if F3 is faster than F1? GIve the mass audience the best racing and the most glamour.