The more things change, the more it stays the same.
Discussion
I was watching an old F1 race Saturday on Sky. It was our Nige's epic run at Silverstone in 1987. Puncture, then storm to catch Piquet.(I was there as well, sitting in the Stowe Stand) A couple of things I noticed. firstly how quiet the cars were, secondly, the speed differencial between the Williams and the backmarkers, which was the entire field that day, both Piquet and Mansel lapped 3rd place! lastly, listening to Murry walkers commentary, he was saying much the same as the current commentators. Firstly, Mansel is pushing on, catching Piquet, his tyres are in better shape, but will they take this pace until the end of the race? james Hunt then cuts in with, Nigel has obviously turned his boost up to get the extra pace, to which Murry says, yes, but will he have enough fuel? He's got a little light on his dash which will go red if he's going to run out. Then there is a little bit of banter and Murry comes up with the old chestnut, 'of course, catching in F1 is one thing, passing is another'.
So 28 years later, the drivers still have to fuel save and watch their tyres and its still hard to pass. The end was epic and I never tire of watching the pass into stow. But it hit me that F1 really hasn't changed that much. I will concede that the cars looked more dramatic with the wider track and fat rear tyres and it is probably harder to pass now than it was then due to the effect of the dirty air on the increasingly sophisticated aero. But overall, it's still the same sport.
So 28 years later, the drivers still have to fuel save and watch their tyres and its still hard to pass. The end was epic and I never tire of watching the pass into stow. But it hit me that F1 really hasn't changed that much. I will concede that the cars looked more dramatic with the wider track and fat rear tyres and it is probably harder to pass now than it was then due to the effect of the dirty air on the increasingly sophisticated aero. But overall, it's still the same sport.
There was some crap being talked on the BBC coverage yesterday, saying how people want to see the cars driving flat out not having to save fuel, like it was some new thing and hadn't been happening since the 60s or 70s. Unless there's a rule that they have to run with brimmed fuel tanks and a fixed maximum fuel flow they will either under-fill/run rich to dump fuel at the start till they are under-fueled because a lighter car's a faster car.
//j17 said:
There was some crap being talked on the BBC coverage yesterday, saying how people want to see the cars driving flat out not having to save fuel, like it was some new thing and hadn't been happening since the 60s or 70s. Unless there's a rule that they have to run with brimmed fuel tanks and a fixed maximum fuel flow they will either under-fill/run rich to dump fuel at the start till they are under-fueled because a lighter car's a faster car.
Yes too true. Do you remember the year when qualifying was supposed to have a certain amount of fuel to equal things out and the cars just drove around for 15 mins burning fuel then they came into the pits, bolted on new tyres and did a quali lap. //j17 said:
There was some crap being talked on the BBC coverage yesterday, saying how people want to see the cars driving flat out not having to save fuel, like it was some new thing and hadn't been happening since the 60s or 70s. Unless there's a rule that they have to run with brimmed fuel tanks and a fixed maximum fuel flow they will either under-fill/run rich to dump fuel at the start till they are under-fueled because a lighter car's a faster car.
you do remember refueling don't you?marshalla said:
The problem, now, is that the computers tell them how and when to do everything - the driver's judgment is rarely allowed to be used and the race is controlled from the pits, not the steering wheels.
The other thing with computers is that we didn't have them back then either so the only place to moan about Mansell's tyre situation was with your mates down the pub.I've mentioned this before but if you can find Nigel Roebuck's Grand Prix Years 1980 - 1983, grab it and read it. It could have been written last week about last year's season...politics, Ferrari having too much power, uneven distribution of money, processional races turning away the crowds, cars becoming too technical....
RGambo said:
I was watching an old F1 race Saturday on Sky. It was our Nige's epic run at Silverstone in 1987. Puncture, then storm to catch Piquet.(I was there as well, sitting in the Stowe Stand) A couple of things I noticed. firstly how quiet the cars were, secondly, the speed differencial between the Williams and the backmarkers, which was the entire field that day, both Piquet and Mansel lapped 3rd place! lastly, listening to Murry walkers commentary, he was saying much the same as the current commentators. Firstly, Mansel is pushing on, catching Piquet, his tyres are in better shape, but will they take this pace until the end of the race? james Hunt then cuts in with, Nigel has obviously turned his boost up to get the extra pace, to which Murry says, yes, but will he have enough fuel? He's got a little light on his dash which will go red if he's going to run out. Then there is a little bit of banter and Murry comes up with the old chestnut, 'of course, catching in F1 is one thing, passing is another'.
So 28 years later, the drivers still have to fuel save and watch their tyres and its still hard to pass. The end was epic and I never tire of watching the pass into stow. But it hit me that F1 really hasn't changed that much. I will concede that the cars looked more dramatic with the wider track and fat rear tyres and it is probably harder to pass now than it was then due to the effect of the dirty air on the increasingly sophisticated aero. But overall, it's still the same sport.
Did you see me? I was at Club, high up on the banking. Tall chap in a green hat?So 28 years later, the drivers still have to fuel save and watch their tyres and its still hard to pass. The end was epic and I never tire of watching the pass into stow. But it hit me that F1 really hasn't changed that much. I will concede that the cars looked more dramatic with the wider track and fat rear tyres and it is probably harder to pass now than it was then due to the effect of the dirty air on the increasingly sophisticated aero. But overall, it's still the same sport.
I think that was the most entertaining race I've ever seen, but it was just two cars, at least from 60% race distance. That was when I worked out that there was no way Mansell could catch Piquet.
marshalla said:
The problem, now, is that the computers tell them how and when to do everything - the driver's judgment is rarely allowed to be used and the race is controlled from the pits, not the steering wheels.
In those days fuel gauges weren't particularly reliable and it wasn't unheard of gambling on the gauge mis-reading. //j17 said:
There was some crap being talked on the BBC coverage yesterday, saying how people want to see the cars driving flat out not having to save fuel, like it was some new thing and hadn't been happening since the 60s or 70s. Unless there's a rule that they have to run with brimmed fuel tanks and a fixed maximum fuel flow they will either under-fill/run rich to dump fuel at the start till they are under-fueled because a lighter car's a faster car.
Fuel saving isn't so bad when everybody's doing it - it becomes an irrelevance to the racing really. The bit that's tipped the balance is the tyres IMO. Back in the 60s the tyres lasted a lot longer - a whole race wasn't unreasonable, and Jim Clark apparently could manage more than one weekend on a set. It's fair to say they could take a lot of abuse and would give up close to their peak grip over a wide temperature range.
Although tyres have become quicker wearing, up until the new Pirellis they had a wide operating window. But the current tyres mean that even a couple of laps of understeering behind someone ruins the set.
Whatever F1 does they have to find a way of making the cars able to follow close enough behind each other to allow passing to happen naturally. I think the tyres are a big part of that, possibly more than the aero.
davepoth said:
Whatever F1 does they have to find a way of making the cars able to follow close enough behind each other to allow passing to happen naturally. I think the tyres are a big part of that, possibly more than the aero.
TBH I think this is the only thing they need to fix F1. If they could lose DRS but have cleaner aero/ANYTHING that let you stay on the gearbox of other drivers and maybe try a sneaky pass it would improve the spectacle an awful lot.It might mean drivers getting bogged down in battles through the field and people romping to victory if they don't have a line to defend, but so what? I want to see drivers bogged down in battles.
davepoth said:
Whatever F1 does they have to find a way of making the cars able to follow close enough behind each other to allow passing to happen naturally. I think the tyres are a big part of that, possibly more than the aero.
The grippier tyres afforded by a tyre war of the 2000s never broke apart the Trulli train.Scuffers said:
entropy said:
The grippier tyres afforded by a tyre war of the 2000s never broke apart the Trulli train.
what? those nice ones with grooves in them?yes, they were really good and grippy...
Regardless, even in the 90s tyre tyre with Goodyear and Bridgestone you had races that were a procession.
Scuffers said:
entropy said:
The grippier tyres afforded by a tyre war of the 2000s never broke apart the Trulli train.
what? those nice ones with grooves in them?yes, they were really good and grippy...
Regardless, even in the 90s tyre tyre with Goodyear and Bridgestone you had races that were a procession.
Am I wrong to fondly remember 2005 when there was refuelling but no tyre changes? A good year I think - better if McLaren had built a more reliable car to really take the challenge to Alonso.
I think some element of endurance is a good thing in F1, doesn't necessarily have to be fuel though.
I think some element of endurance is a good thing in F1, doesn't necessarily have to be fuel though.
entropy said:
Better than the current Pirellis? They had there faults but the drivers weren't consumed by thermal degredation and could push the tyres.
Regardless, even in the 90s tyre tyre with Goodyear and Bridgestone you had races that were a procession.
yes, I am sure they were, but obviously still somewhat compromised.Regardless, even in the 90s tyre tyre with Goodyear and Bridgestone you had races that were a procession.
Look, if you want wheel to wheel racing,you need to give the cars more mechanical grip and less aero-derived grip, it really is that simple.
you only have to look at GP2 or WSR (or just about any other formula) to see/understand this.
If F1 got rid of another 50% of wing related aero and then had proper tyres, then the cars would be able to run closer together.
Downforce itself is not the issue, it's how it's generated, ground effect (skirts/etc) do not screw up the airflow (relatively!) honking great multi-element wings etc do.
My ideal would be force single element wings of a prescribed size, along with losing the plank etc, no other aero parts on the cars (winglets/turning veins, etc etc).
then give them 125Kg's of fuel but with the same max fuel flow (or maybe up it 10%), and proper tyres with no limits on how many sets/compounds during the race (limits on sets for other times/testing/etc).
also take the limits of the powertrain electrical functions, no limit to charge/discharge capacity/rates/etc. if somebody can get a 300+hp MGU to work, go for it.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff