F1 : Back to the Future?
Discussion
No, I’m not in the wrong forum. Read on.
We have racing teams dropping like flies at the moment; selling out, retiring, etc. mainly due to the effects of a recession. But some of you may agree that the long term thoughts that this will provoke might just be a good thing.
To race an F1 car in this era requires almost unimaginable amounts of technology and hard cash and we all have to ask ourselves if this is what we want when we talk about motorsport. Have we reached a point where the engineers are winning the races and not the drivers? How much “assistance” is justified to the driver to give him the frequently tiny edge required to win?
Consider this: if we sat two identical Jaguar C Type racers from the fifties on the grid at Silverstone and put Stirling Moss, now in his eighth decade in one, and Lewis Hamilton in the other, and gave them say, ten laps, I think the outcome would be extremely interesting and doubtless surprising. The reason for that would not be simply due to superior ability on the part of one driver or the other, but because one was trained as an independent driver, i.e. the soon as the clutch is popped, you are on your own, the other wholly dependent on a task force of mechanical and electronic engineers working while he is driving the car.
The question is, would it not be far more sporting and certainly more interesting to leave the preparation of the car to the engineers to get it dead right before the race and have it sitting at the start ready for the driver to take over from there and be wholly responsible for the racing on his own, devoid of ongoing assistance and adjustment?
Last year the FIA rules were changed to limit engine design now to a V8 configuration of 2.4 Litres with a rev limit of 19000 RPM. One has to ask if this is a step in the right direction or if it is, in many respects retrograde. The engine that is remembered fondly and was a domineering force for many years was the Cosworth DFV developed in the sixties, bearing a remarkable resemblance to the current FIA configuration. Is this coincidence or is it the perhaps unconscious desire to return to a more simplistic, traditional and therefore sporting format between car and driver?
Modern F1 engines owe their phenomenal power outputs to two things, the development of hydraulic valve “springs” enabling rev limits to reach the dizzy heights of 20000 RPM, and the attendant metallurgical advances required to develop the kind of materials that can withstand the accompanying stresses at these kinds of output. So what can we do to return to the more sporting era, but not throw the advances back to the stone age, and correspondingly bring budgets back down from the stratospheric heights they have reached?
I would suggest a compromise. The danger with the current regulations is that all engines are going to be virtually identical. The past few years have seen some absolutely magnificent engine configurations being developed such as the V10s and 12s. I think teams should be permitted to retain that kind of variety of design but remove the electronic wireless and computer control leaving the driver much more responsible and “in charge” during the race. Leave in the modern mechanicals but go back to mechanical injection; no ECUs. Get rid of the sequential transmissions and go back to manual ‘boxes where the driver has to use a gear lever, clutch and rev counter to get the changes just right.
The removal of traction control this year made for some very interesting driving and tended to sort the men from the boys, particularly in the wet; I believe the above proposals would enhance this even further and give us some tremendously entertaining driving that could truly be considered to be motor sport. Bear in mind that the whole idea of racing is not for the benefit of the development engineers, although clearly without them there would be very little sport, but for the spectators and fans all over the world who sponsor the sport by attending it and buying new vehicles inspired by the companies who race them.
The FIA seriously needs to consider the true meaning of the sport as it relates more to driving and less to development technology.
We have racing teams dropping like flies at the moment; selling out, retiring, etc. mainly due to the effects of a recession. But some of you may agree that the long term thoughts that this will provoke might just be a good thing.
To race an F1 car in this era requires almost unimaginable amounts of technology and hard cash and we all have to ask ourselves if this is what we want when we talk about motorsport. Have we reached a point where the engineers are winning the races and not the drivers? How much “assistance” is justified to the driver to give him the frequently tiny edge required to win?
Consider this: if we sat two identical Jaguar C Type racers from the fifties on the grid at Silverstone and put Stirling Moss, now in his eighth decade in one, and Lewis Hamilton in the other, and gave them say, ten laps, I think the outcome would be extremely interesting and doubtless surprising. The reason for that would not be simply due to superior ability on the part of one driver or the other, but because one was trained as an independent driver, i.e. the soon as the clutch is popped, you are on your own, the other wholly dependent on a task force of mechanical and electronic engineers working while he is driving the car.
The question is, would it not be far more sporting and certainly more interesting to leave the preparation of the car to the engineers to get it dead right before the race and have it sitting at the start ready for the driver to take over from there and be wholly responsible for the racing on his own, devoid of ongoing assistance and adjustment?
Last year the FIA rules were changed to limit engine design now to a V8 configuration of 2.4 Litres with a rev limit of 19000 RPM. One has to ask if this is a step in the right direction or if it is, in many respects retrograde. The engine that is remembered fondly and was a domineering force for many years was the Cosworth DFV developed in the sixties, bearing a remarkable resemblance to the current FIA configuration. Is this coincidence or is it the perhaps unconscious desire to return to a more simplistic, traditional and therefore sporting format between car and driver?
Modern F1 engines owe their phenomenal power outputs to two things, the development of hydraulic valve “springs” enabling rev limits to reach the dizzy heights of 20000 RPM, and the attendant metallurgical advances required to develop the kind of materials that can withstand the accompanying stresses at these kinds of output. So what can we do to return to the more sporting era, but not throw the advances back to the stone age, and correspondingly bring budgets back down from the stratospheric heights they have reached?
I would suggest a compromise. The danger with the current regulations is that all engines are going to be virtually identical. The past few years have seen some absolutely magnificent engine configurations being developed such as the V10s and 12s. I think teams should be permitted to retain that kind of variety of design but remove the electronic wireless and computer control leaving the driver much more responsible and “in charge” during the race. Leave in the modern mechanicals but go back to mechanical injection; no ECUs. Get rid of the sequential transmissions and go back to manual ‘boxes where the driver has to use a gear lever, clutch and rev counter to get the changes just right.
The removal of traction control this year made for some very interesting driving and tended to sort the men from the boys, particularly in the wet; I believe the above proposals would enhance this even further and give us some tremendously entertaining driving that could truly be considered to be motor sport. Bear in mind that the whole idea of racing is not for the benefit of the development engineers, although clearly without them there would be very little sport, but for the spectators and fans all over the world who sponsor the sport by attending it and buying new vehicles inspired by the companies who race them.
The FIA seriously needs to consider the true meaning of the sport as it relates more to driving and less to development technology.
I suddenly got that funny feeling of deja vu! 
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Edited by RichB on Saturday 13th December 20:31
I think that Lewis might do better than you are implying.
Think about what he did in the TopGear piece of crap in the poring rain.
But I take your general point.
Personally I'd like to see them race with as massiver surfeit of torque over traction as can be arranged.
All tactical pit stops should be banned. They should start the race with enough fuel and tyres to get to the end. Sure if they get a puncture they should be allowed to stop and change it, but they should be lining up with the ability to get to the end of the race. F1 is not endurance racing. Personally I'd like to see them given a set of dimensions which limit the cars size, a calorific fuel value they are allowed to use, A rule that the driver must be in control of the car and finally have a rule which limits the aerodynamic impact they are allowed to have on a second car of the same design running behind them. Everything else should be up to the team.
The richest team has always had an advantage.
The C-Type is a good example. For 1953 not winning Le Mans was not an option to the Jaguar team. The car was basically a one trick pony. It was designed to win Le Mans, nothing else mattered. The D was designed to carry on that one single objective. At certain other events it wasn't that successful, but there was never any thought of changing the car because of the other results.
Think about what he did in the TopGear piece of crap in the poring rain.
But I take your general point.
Personally I'd like to see them race with as massiver surfeit of torque over traction as can be arranged.
All tactical pit stops should be banned. They should start the race with enough fuel and tyres to get to the end. Sure if they get a puncture they should be allowed to stop and change it, but they should be lining up with the ability to get to the end of the race. F1 is not endurance racing. Personally I'd like to see them given a set of dimensions which limit the cars size, a calorific fuel value they are allowed to use, A rule that the driver must be in control of the car and finally have a rule which limits the aerodynamic impact they are allowed to have on a second car of the same design running behind them. Everything else should be up to the team.
The richest team has always had an advantage.
The C-Type is a good example. For 1953 not winning Le Mans was not an option to the Jaguar team. The car was basically a one trick pony. It was designed to win Le Mans, nothing else mattered. The D was designed to carry on that one single objective. At certain other events it wasn't that successful, but there was never any thought of changing the car because of the other results.
I take your point, and it's completely valid, especially the comparison between 1950s cars and drivers and those 50 years hence.
However, one might argue that if the development and technology that abounds in the pinnacle (arguably) of world motorsport, where else will it be developed?
Essentially you're talking about putting the F1 drivers in a more standardised class of car, which is what most of them have migrated from (formula ford et al) - but I'd personally still like to see what the big boys with their practically unlimited budgets can produce given the head to do so.
Ultimately though, which is going to attract the big sponsors, the TV crowds and therefore be able to pay the top drivers? It's consumer driven when all's said and done.
However, one might argue that if the development and technology that abounds in the pinnacle (arguably) of world motorsport, where else will it be developed?
Essentially you're talking about putting the F1 drivers in a more standardised class of car, which is what most of them have migrated from (formula ford et al) - but I'd personally still like to see what the big boys with their practically unlimited budgets can produce given the head to do so.
Ultimately though, which is going to attract the big sponsors, the TV crowds and therefore be able to pay the top drivers? It's consumer driven when all's said and done.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff