F1 has 2 months to slow down.
Discussion
Racing Live said:
Teams have two months to slow Formula One down.
If they fail, FIA President Max Mosley warned at a London meeting of the 'F1 Commission' that compulsory changes on the grounds of safety will be imposed.
He said the World Motor Sport Council would be advised on Wednesday.
"I've told them I'm going to ask [the Council] to give formal notice to the Technical Working Group to come up with changes to slow the cars," Mosley added.
The Briton wants teams to embrace a 2.4 litre V8 engine formula but Williams' partner BMW, in particular, is threatening to quit F1 under those conditions.
Mosley wonders whether BMW, which favours V10, "want to be in [F1] or not."
"I think if the majority go one way, it may be like that."
So Max wants the teams to slow down during the current season does he, kind of makes a mockery of the cutting costs side they are always going on about because change costs.
But does he mean slow down maximum speed or cornering speed? Anyway it won't be long before the speeds are back up again, certainly the teams with the biggest budgets, that'll be Ferrari then (don't count Toyota who may have a bigger budget but are still learning) will be able to throw resources at the problem and probably dominate to a greater extent than they currently do.
I do have one way to slow everyone down, ask Mr Schumacher to retire, then the speeds will definately go down
No - it really does need to happen. It's a perennial problem in F1 and has raised its ugly head over many decades. It was the reason F1 switched from 2.5 to 1.5 litres in 1961. It was the reason why sliding skirts and later side pods were banned in the 80s. It's the reason turbos were limited and then banned in the late 80s. It has to happen every now and then just to keep things in check. If the cars are allowed to evolve unfettered, soon no track in the world could accomodate them - except maybe desert circuits like Bahrain.
Of course, virtually every directive issued by the FIA over the past two years has, following an initial agreement by the teams, been completely ignored, abandoned or reversed. Witness the "agreement" a few weeks ago to change the qualifying format followed by the anouncement this week that the qualifying format will now NOT be changed. Not to menytion directives on traction control, availability of engines to smaller teams etc etc etc.
It seems to me that F1 is really floundering around at the moment. Everbody recognises that drastic changes need to be made to the whole "show" but none of the teams are willing to compromise their own positions for the betterment of the sport. It's very sad and there can only be one ending - oblivion.
Of course, virtually every directive issued by the FIA over the past two years has, following an initial agreement by the teams, been completely ignored, abandoned or reversed. Witness the "agreement" a few weeks ago to change the qualifying format followed by the anouncement this week that the qualifying format will now NOT be changed. Not to menytion directives on traction control, availability of engines to smaller teams etc etc etc.
It seems to me that F1 is really floundering around at the moment. Everbody recognises that drastic changes need to be made to the whole "show" but none of the teams are willing to compromise their own positions for the betterment of the sport. It's very sad and there can only be one ending - oblivion.
But won't smaller engines make things more boring?
The problem with speed in F1 is cornering speed. Acceleration and top speed is good. Don't MotoGP bikes out accelerate F1 cars above a certain speed? Certainly this year the bikes are interesting and F1 I just watch for amusement.
Smaller engines = less acceleration = harder to pass on straights?
Also less braking = less scope for heroic braking into corners?
Less aerodynamics, more rubber on the road is what we need.....?
The problem with speed in F1 is cornering speed. Acceleration and top speed is good. Don't MotoGP bikes out accelerate F1 cars above a certain speed? Certainly this year the bikes are interesting and F1 I just watch for amusement.
Smaller engines = less acceleration = harder to pass on straights?
Also less braking = less scope for heroic braking into corners?
Less aerodynamics, more rubber on the road is what we need.....?
FourWheelDrift said:And even bring back ground effect if you want to keep the downforce up without overly compromising the car behind.
FIA compulsory standard single plane front and rear wings for all cars, fat slicks (grip & drag).
That's for starters.
The answers are fairly obvious - which is why there is no chance that they will ever be implimented.
Muppets the lot of them!
Rich
Back in 1960, many doom merchamts (particularly the British teams) were scathing of the decision to reduce engine capacities to 1.5 litres. They said the racing would be more boring, the cars would not be spectacular etc etc. They even tried to perpetuate the old F1 by running a rival series (the Intercontinental Formula) which fizzled out after a number of races. In fact, the 1.5 litre F1 cars produced some classic racing and brought out the best in intelligent, skillful drivers (like Clark and Surtees). Ironically, it was the 1.5 litre formula which stamped British dominance on F1 car design.
However, by the mid 60s nearly all the lap records on F1 GP tracks were held by the much more powerful Le Mans or Can Am sports cars so the engine capacity was doubled for 1966 to 3 litres.
I really do think we have to go down the lower capacity route again - even down to 1 litre. I'd also like to see categories for alternative engines - LPG, diesel. turbines, petrol/electric hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells etc. Oh, and an abolition of front and rear wings with maybe some underfloor aerodynamics.
However, by the mid 60s nearly all the lap records on F1 GP tracks were held by the much more powerful Le Mans or Can Am sports cars so the engine capacity was doubled for 1966 to 3 litres.
I really do think we have to go down the lower capacity route again - even down to 1 litre. I'd also like to see categories for alternative engines - LPG, diesel. turbines, petrol/electric hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells etc. Oh, and an abolition of front and rear wings with maybe some underfloor aerodynamics.
John Surtees at Goodwood FOS said:
"The 1.5s - not as pleasurable as the bigger ones."
Drivers like more power. I think going down a smaller capacity route (less power) will make drivers feel they are not at the pinnacle of motorsports when they see bigger engined minor formula and junior cars.
I actually don't buy into the idea that traction control etc are big budget items. At the end of the day, you need wheel speed sensors (which will stay anyway), and a method of cutting the power to the wheels (either a spark cut or doing something clever with the clutch that it is rumored that some of the teams may be trying). The electronic hardware infrastructure should also not bother a modern F1 team too much.
The real forwards moves have been in the software, which whilst there is a human cost in development, is so flexible that a wide range of possibilities are achieveable in minimal time without manufacturing new bits.
OK, the present setup demands lots of testing to get the best out of the package, but as this looks likely to be limited in the future, then electronics should be cheap. Don't know any figures here, but I'd guess that Williams budget for developing their active suspension was peanuts in today's terms - and look what they achieved with that, in a period where the hardware was exponentially more expensive.
I understand the problem with cutting the speeds by too much. F1 should be the pinacle, and should also have the lowest lap times.
As said above, aero appears to be the only way to go. I'd rather see it done on regs rather than forcing standard components however, just to keep a bit of variety in the sport (and yes, this will add cost). F1 cars are not all identical - just compare a Renault and a Williams side pods to see that. I'd like that to stay.
The real forwards moves have been in the software, which whilst there is a human cost in development, is so flexible that a wide range of possibilities are achieveable in minimal time without manufacturing new bits.
OK, the present setup demands lots of testing to get the best out of the package, but as this looks likely to be limited in the future, then electronics should be cheap. Don't know any figures here, but I'd guess that Williams budget for developing their active suspension was peanuts in today's terms - and look what they achieved with that, in a period where the hardware was exponentially more expensive.
I understand the problem with cutting the speeds by too much. F1 should be the pinacle, and should also have the lowest lap times.
As said above, aero appears to be the only way to go. I'd rather see it done on regs rather than forcing standard components however, just to keep a bit of variety in the sport (and yes, this will add cost). F1 cars are not all identical - just compare a Renault and a Williams side pods to see that. I'd like that to stay.
FourWheelDrift said:
Drivers like more power. I think going down a smaller capacity route (less power) will make drivers feel they are not at the pinnacle of motorsports when they see bigger engined minor formula and junior cars.
Yes, just think of the US GP! The few Americans who could be bothered to turn up - saying "look Hank at those silly little cars, not like our Indycars - they are proper racing machines. Yee har the president and god bless ma's apple pies."
How much is "more power"?
In the 1930s, the top GP cars were delivering 600 bhp.
In the 1950s about 300 bhp.
The early 1960s (up to) about 300 bhp.
1966 to 1983 about 450 bhp-550 bhp.
In the turbo era (1977 to 1988) they peaked at 1500 bhp!!!!.
Today probably they are peaking at 900 bhp.
Surtees is actually talking about 400 bhp to 450 bhp 3 litre cars compared to the 250bhp to 300 bhp 1.5 litre cars. Ironic therefore that he won his one and only World Championship driving a 1.5 litre Ferrari.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 29th June 11:06
In the 1930s, the top GP cars were delivering 600 bhp.
In the 1950s about 300 bhp.
The early 1960s (up to) about 300 bhp.
1966 to 1983 about 450 bhp-550 bhp.
In the turbo era (1977 to 1988) they peaked at 1500 bhp!!!!.
Today probably they are peaking at 900 bhp.
Surtees is actually talking about 400 bhp to 450 bhp 3 litre cars compared to the 250bhp to 300 bhp 1.5 litre cars. Ironic therefore that he won his one and only World Championship driving a 1.5 litre Ferrari.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 29th June 11:06
the pinnacle of motorsport should be the championship which is the hardest to win by fact that the drivers competing are the best in the world. In this case, it doesnt matter if they are driving F1 cars or Formula Fords, it should not matter how cutting edge the technology, if the cars the drivers are made to work for the title then so be it. The fact that F1 cars are the cutting edge of motorsport, and that technology has made its way into road cars should not be a factor in taking the sport "backwards" and going to a more basic car with manual gear linkages, no computer aids etc. Imagine who had more fun, Jim Clark in a Lotus 49 or Michael Schumacher today?
FourWheelDrift said:
FIA compulsory standard single plane front and rear wings for all cars, fat slicks (grip & drag).
That's for starters.
Yep, good call, perhaps a choice of two, one for dry and one for wet.
Also remove the 'fly-by-wire' throttles, back to cable activation, so the driver has input rather than electronics. Engine size may be OK but a reduction to 2.4 should not be a problem.
I also think there should be no refueling in the race, and preferably no tyre stops either. I am totally fed up of seeing somebody go from 6th to 1st without overtaking anybody, either that or controlled pitstops, all equal in time to be taken within a 2 lap window.
kevinday said:
I also think there should be no refueling in the race, and preferably no tyre stops either. I am totally fed up of seeing somebody go from 6th to 1st without overtaking anybody, either that or controlled pitstops, all equal in time to be taken within a 2 lap window.
I think if there should be any pit stops at all they should be Le Mans/CART/IRL style. Limited number of people allowed to work on the car, no tyre changing until the fuelling has been done.
So maybe 2 people on the fuel, and 2 on the wheels plus on person with a board, these would be the only people allowed to take part in the pitstop. Saftey (less people about) and more reasons to stay out rather than stop (for lost time reasons).
Edited to add - I am available for consultancy to the FIA
>> Edited by FourWheelDrift on Tuesday 29th June 15:30
The way to slow down F1 without making it more boring is to change the way F1 cars slow down.
F1 is dull because there isn't enough overtaking. If the cars had smaller, less effective brakes (1) braking distances would be longer, which would make out-braking more possible and (2) the last 100 metres, say, before a corner would have a lower average speed and therefore accidents would be less dangerous when they occurred.
So let's take 50mm off the maximum permitted front wheel diameter - not width, diameter - and outlaw carbon brakes.
F1 is dull because there isn't enough overtaking. If the cars had smaller, less effective brakes (1) braking distances would be longer, which would make out-braking more possible and (2) the last 100 metres, say, before a corner would have a lower average speed and therefore accidents would be less dangerous when they occurred.
So let's take 50mm off the maximum permitted front wheel diameter - not width, diameter - and outlaw carbon brakes.
williamp said:Yes Will, but then with pressure from sponsors, team managers, other pilots, etc, drivers will be pressed to force things and run extra risks just to stay in business.
leave the power alone. Just have no front/rear wings and skinny tyres- think of a 700 bhp Formula Ford.
Then we will see car control!!!! And only skillful drivers will be able to turn a corner, nevermind race...
Think what happened in group B rallying in the 80's. IIRC in 1986 a Lancia Delta S4 could lap Estoril fast enough to be 6th in the grid for the F1 GP. Then serious accidents started because you have too much power for the car/roads.
Andrew Noakes said:
and outlaw carbon brakes.
Williams did a test with steel brakes a few years back and concluded with development they would be as effective as carbon discs. Then with further development I'm sure they would be able to get rid of any brake fade too.
If the obstacle is put in ther way of the engineers they will always find a way around them.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff