how to improve the show

[truefan72]

so what should be done to improve the show?

Martin Whitemarsh suggested that he and 2 other teams recommended mandatory pit stops. i think it is a terrible idea.

I think the FIA should get rid of the refueling ban, introduce a standardized fuel rig and get rid of the tyre rules for Q3. Can be introduced by Malaysia. And I don;t want to hear about cost cutting etc. The FIA/teams already manage the fuel payloads and would only have to add the fuel rigs. Teams are already well versed in refueling.

KERS might be another option, a more powerful KERS system that allows for more boost (remember it is restricted and can be altered) might see more overtaking.

[steveaki13]

[quote="truefan72"]
Martin Whitemarsh suggested that he and 2 other teams recommended mandatory pit stops. i think it is a terrible idea.

quote]

I agree that really would be a bad idea. :confused:

Although I am not sure it would improve the racing, I would like to see a return to pre 2003 Qualifying were its just the fastest man wins and no issue over judging which tyre/fuel will be best for race.

As for the race itself as I posted on another thread, I think if there is no refueling then tyres must have a much wider range so drivers can push hard or preserve through the races. On non stops, 1, 2 or even 3 stops.

[F1boat]

It is not serious to return refueling in the next round and it will be also very unfair on teams which developed their cars for great pace with heavy machines. Here you have good suggestion by James Allen:
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/03/alonso-wins-show-is-criticised-but-there-is-an-answer/

[Hawkmoon]

I don't see how pitstops make the racing better. Sure places were won and lost but they were done so by the pit crews as much as the drivers. Surely that's not what we want to see.

The real problem is the cars and the FIA's continued inability to get the tech regs right. They should have banned the double diffusers when they had the chance but, as usual, dropped the ball.

By calling for more pitstops, refuelling or different tyres all you are doing is skirting around the issue and not addressing the real problem.

[Sonic]

Yeah i'd agree with you in general, the one way to screw F1 even more is to regulate yet more behavior that the teams must follow. Clearly the top ten tyre rule is just rollocks so regulating the number of pitstops just removes yet another element of chance! FFS, removing fuel stops was supposed to encourage on track passing, and whilst that hasn't worked out yet, telling the drivers they must pit twice just makes them wait for the next stop to pass someone in front because as was shown today whoever pits first, wins.

I'd like to see KERS back - it didn't get a fair shot.

[havk]

Although I am not sure it would improve the racing, I would like to see a return to pre 2003 Qualifying were its just the fastest man wins and no issue over judging which tyre/fuel will be best for race.


I agree. In qualifying should win the fastest driver. I have never liked idea that drivers from Q1 can't tank or change tyres after qualifying. The divide into Q1, Q2, Q3 is OK, although old 1 hour system was also good.

I also didn't like the rule that drivers had to use two types of tyres in race.

[UltimateDanGTR]

To me, there needs to be 3 things changed or reviewed in Formula 1:

-banning double diffusers already in process for next year.) I'd mandate that a diffuser must be very simple.

-Review on circuits. with the uber safe circuits and cars nowadays (safe cars being good but circuits are oversafe-run off area is fine, but new tracks have far too many slow corners) I think changes to many Tilkedromes need to be made, with faster corners making for more flowing tracks. im sure the drivers would like this as well.

-review of car shapes, an investigation into how different shapes of cars could follow other cars more easily

and as a side note, how about going to countries where the fans actually are? Argentina, France, Mexico, Scandinavia. One race is fine for the middle east but i cant see the point of 2. but anyway, thats another topic...

[Sonic]

It is not serious to return refueling in the next round and it will be also very unfair on teams which developed their cars for great pace with heavy machines. Here you have good suggestion by James Allen:
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/03/alonso-wins-show-is-criticised-but-there-is-an-answer/

That's exactly the wrong way to go IMO. The tyres are already pretty close, hell if you can go 20 odd laps on what are supposed to be the super soft then they are not soft enough! Super soft should only be able to manage a GP distance over 3 stops, whereas the hard would be strong enough for an entire race distance but with enough performance difference between the two to make it worth a punt on stopping more often.

[steveaki13]

It seems as though the way these F1 tyres have been designed this year (given the change in rules) it is only going to need 1 stop at every race on the whole.
It really should be a lot more difficult to use tyres to get through the race distance.

[Oli_M]

Personally, I think they could improve this by making for example, the softer tire only really suitable for 10 laps. So once you've qualified on them, you've really only got 5-7 race laps before they drop off significantly.

The harder tire then should only be good enough for 20ish laps. This means either making 2 pitstops, trying to conserve tires more (and hence being a bit slower) or just trying to hang on at the end of the race with tires that are struggling. Think this might lead to closer finishes and teams trying more 'different' strategies.

[Sonic]

I'd also like to see the end of parc ferme conditions after quali. How do we expect any shake up in order when the car on pole is faster than the guy in 2nd on Saturday - its gonna be the same on Sunday if they're not allowed to touch the cars.

Back in the day Schumacher was a master at turning an average qualifying car into a mega race car by tweaking and fine tuning the setup over night.

[steveaki13]

I'd also like to see the end of parc ferme conditions after quali. How do we expect any shake up in order when the car on pole is faster than the guy in 2nd on Saturday - its gonna be the same on Sunday if they're not allowed to touch the cars.

Back in the day Schumacher was a master at turning an average qualifying car into a mega race car by tweaking and fine tuning the setup over night.


Yep

I suppose any Qualifying problems could be dialled out come race day, while now any car with problems in Quali have to drive with them potentially all race.

[truefan72]

TBH none pf the changes the fIA have instituted over the past 2 years have improved the racing.

[Valve Bounce]

so what should be done to improve the show?

I think the FIA should get rid of the refueling ban, introduce a standardized fuel rig and get rid of the tyre rules for Q3. Can be introduced by Malaysia. And I don;t want to hear about cost cutting etc. The FIA/teams already manage the fuel payloads and would only have to add the fuel rigs. Teams are already well versed in refueling.

KERS might be another option, a more powerful KERS system that allows for more boost (remember it is restricted and can be altered) might see more overtaking.

Forget it!! The FIA will never fall for these innovative ideas. :(

[Valve Bounce]

I don't see how pitstops make the racing better. Sure places were won and lost but they were done so by the pit crews as much as the drivers. Surely that's not what we want to see.

The real problem is the cars and the FIA's continued inability to get the tech regs right. They should have banned the double diffusers when they had the chance but, as usual, dropped the ball.

By calling for more pitstops, refuelling or different tyres all you are doing is skirting around the issue and not addressing the real problem.

OK! how about banning all the aero, have absolutely flat wings for all cars, banning all on board computers? Does that make any sense?

[Rollo]

OK! how about banning all the aero, have absolutely flat wings for all cars, banning all on board computers? Does that make any sense?

I'd be all on for that.

I think it would be kinda neat to see cars skating about because they weren't stuck to the bloody ground, and weren't upset simply by following the cars in front.

Formula One used to not have any wings; Formula Ford doesn't currently, and I've seen some corkers of races in Formula Fords.

[truefan72]

OK! how about banning all the aero, have absolutely flat wings for all cars, banning all on board computers? Does that make any sense?

then it won't really be F1 would it?

That's like saying that soccer needs to get rid of the synthetic ball and go back to a goats' hide, players need to be barefoot and the goal post's should be replaced with chalk outlines on the ground.

What is it with this incessant fascination to harken back to an era when cars were soap boxes. I am not interested in watching a series with junk kit kart cars with zero innovation as the pinnacle of motorsports.

I'm just tired of every discussion including the "nostalgic" option as if in the year 2010 we should be seeing cars that could have been built 60 years ago.

[Langdale Forest]

I think the FIA should get rid of the refueling ban, .

100% agree. :)

[Sulland]

Look to the US: Keep the cars simple !

My 5 cent:
- Standard Front & Rear wings
- Standard diffuse
Construct the cars around these standard parts.

The issues are on the aero side ! Fix it !

[DexDexter]

Look to the US: Keep the cars simple !

My 5 cent:
- Standard Front & Rear wings
- Standard diffuse
Construct the cars around these standard parts.

The issues are on the aero side ! Fix it !

Watching those spec IRL cars is so exciting, right?

[turismo6]

Bad tracks = Bad racing

If Australia gives us a boring race then let's talk.
Melbourne and Sepang are to very good tracks, I would even say that Melbourne is one of best flat tracks in the world and Sepang is by far the best Tilke track.

Having said that,
Standardized Diffuse.

[ArrowsFA1]

The real problem is the cars and the FIA's continued inability to get the tech regs right. They should have banned the double diffusers when they had the chance but, as usual, dropped the ball.

By calling for more pitstops, refuelling or different tyres all you are doing is skirting around the issue and not addressing the real problem.
Agreed :up:

[AndyRAC]

Abandon the tyre specs, keep the ban on refueling so a driver could potentially pick a hard tyre and do the entire race on that set of tyres. Have a 'free for all' qualifying session - like years ago.
As for the tracks - less Tilkedroms please - won't happen though - they've paid big money - and Bernie loves money.

[christophulus]

I'd also like to see the end of parc ferme conditions after quali. How do we expect any shake up in order when the car on pole is faster than the guy in 2nd on Saturday - its gonna be the same on Sunday if they're not allowed to touch the cars.

Back in the day Schumacher was a master at turning an average qualifying car into a mega race car by tweaking and fine tuning the setup over night.

I've never understood what the point of the parc ferme is. If a car has an engine problem (Ferraris) or wants to change the rear wing on both cars (Mercedes), then they're allowed to. So why stop anyone working on the car??

I agree with your idea, let the teams do pretty much whatever they want to the setup, wings etc, we might see a bit of a shake up.

Plus, get the tyres changed.

[V12]

From the sporting side they just need to keep the rules as simple as possible. Sanitized rules equals sanitized racing.

The refuelling ban represented an excellent opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past few years - but they elected to replace race fuel qualifying with race tyre qualifying instead of doing the logical thing and returning it to how it was pre-2003. The Q1/Q2/Q3 knockout thing is OK I guess, although the hour long session was probably better and purer IMO.

Then there's the stupid two-tyre rule in the race, which combined with the current compound choices means all teams are locked into doing one stop. What the hell did they expect to happen?

Then let the teams do whatever the hell they want with the tyres for the race. Super soft, super hard, anywhere in between, run non-stop on the super hards, do three stops with super softs tearing up, and so on. I liked the old system Goodyear had where they had lettered compounds A (hardest), B, C, D, E (softest) and it was a complete free for all.

As for the technical regulations, they need to stop pussy footing around the aero thing and make a firm decision. Either accept that modern F1 is not going to be about wheel-to-wheel, close, overtaking-heavy action, or go the whole hog and ban wings. Yes, all wings, like Formula Ford. Any awkward in-between compromise hasn't worked.

[Sonic]

With regards to aero we are not just talking about F1 here! If we remove the wings from the cars completely we'll have F1 cars slower than current spec GP2's (or worse) so then GP2 rules would need a rethink. But wait then an F3 car would woop a GP2! And so it would go on and on.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

Admit that Max (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72472) was right (once again)! ;)


Mosley admits that he was against the teams' decision to ban refuelling from 2010, but thinks there will still be plenty of excitement without them.

"I was against banning them because in my opinion they were part of the show," he said. "However tyre changes will stay, so it will be exciting to see who will be the quickest at it.

"Also, I trust technology to avoid, like what happened in the eighties, of drivers avoiding fighting in the first part of the race to save their brakes and tyres."

[Sonic]

Another thought enters my noodle.

When last we had no refueling there was no pit lane speed limit, so total time lost was maybe 15 secs. No one will be willing to do 3 stops when total time lost amounts to 1m30s or so.

Now I don't propose removing the limit but perhaps if the pit lane re-entered the track later in the lap - say turn 2 at Bahrain for example - the time loss would be reduced.

[Valve Bounce]

With regards to aero we are not just talking about F1 here! If we remove the wings from the cars completely we'll have F1 cars slower than current spec GP2's (or worse) so then GP2 rules would need a rethink. But wait then an F3 car would woop a GP2! And so it would go on and on.

You need the wings to carry adverts. You want to go faster, increase engine size, and better slicks. The idea is to enable slipstreaming to some extent without a severe decrease in downforce. If you can achieve that some other way - fine. You can have a pure wing running horizontal and still have "some" downforce, and little turbulence; but nowhere like the downforce and turbulence like the raked wings.

The whole issue here is downforce and how little downforce F1 cars can live and race with. This is the supreme apex of engineering excellence that F1 teams strives for: max downforce, and zillions are spent developing this each year. The rest is window dressing. You can have the most powerful and reliable engines but without downforce: go to the back of the class.

[V12]

With regards to aero we are not just talking about F1 here! If we remove the wings from the cars completely we'll have F1 cars slower than current spec GP2's (or worse) so then GP2 rules would need a rethink. But wait then an F3 car would woop a GP2! And so it would go on and on.

You are right - there would need to be a complete overhaul of the formula car racing world from top to bottom. I'm just saying if people want loads of overtaking, sliding cars, close racing and so on, then that's what needs to happen. I personally am happy with the status quo thank you very much, but endless minor aero tweaks in an open formula (where engineers quite rightly will strive to negate the effects of any rule changes) will never have the desired effect.

[V12]

You want to go faster, increase engine size,

I'm going to pick up on this comment because there's something most people (me included) has overlooked in this thread.

In the past non-refuelling era, you had big unrestricted 3.5 litre engines with 12, 10 or 8 cylinders. And before that, unrestricted (1987/88 aside) turbos that could churn out 1000bhp in qualifying trim and were only turned down in the race so that they'd last the distance. So regardless of downforce levels you had cars that were harder to control. Now you have near-standardised, frozen, rev-limited, 2.4 litre V8s, which while giving astonishing bhp-per-litre figures, are much more reigned in than their predecessors.

The FIA has strived pretty much since 2006 to make things more and more closer, but when you narrow the performance gap between cars, then overtaking is naturally going to be harder isn't it?

Like in football, the great exciting high-scoring matches come from either two disparate or at least one poorly organised (relatively speaking) team. What happens when you get two superbly managed teams with well drilled and marshalled defences with game plans perfectly executed? Well a 0-0 draw usually. And speaking of football, you don't get pundits and managers moaning that the rules need to be changed whenever there is a 0-0 draw, football's equivalent of an F1 race with no overtaking. The race wasn't that bad.

[Valve Bounce]

Bring back V12!!

[AndyL]

I'm going to pick up on this comment because there's something most people (me included) has overlooked in this thread.

In the past non-refuelling era, you had big unrestricted 3.5 litre engines with 12, 10 or 8 cylinders. And before that, unrestricted (1987/88 aside) turbos that could churn out 1000bhp in qualifying trim and were only turned down in the race so that they'd last the distance. So regardless of downforce levels you had cars that were harder to control. Now you have near-standardised, frozen, rev-limited, 2.4 litre V8s, which while giving astonishing bhp-per-litre figures, are much more reigned in than their predecessors.

Hmm good point. I guess it goes back to the old truism that if you want spectacular racing then you need to have more power than grip.

[I am evil Homer]

Engines won't get bigger...they'll get smaller and turbo charged.

[Sulland]

Just refresh my memory; why and when did F1 go from 2,0 to 1,8 meter ?

They look like F3 cars, and even more so with the new narrow wings and tyres !

[ArrowsFA1]

Just refresh my memory; why and when did F1 go from 2,0 to 1,8 meter ?
Wasn't it in 1997 that the cars were made narrower? IIRC grooved tyres were introduced at the same time.

Watching a clip of Damon Hill driving his title winning Williams at Bahrain I was reminded of just how wide those cars are in comparison with what we see racing today.

[Mark]

Just refresh my memory; why and when did F1 go from 2,0 to 1,8 meter ?


They were 3.0 litres and went down to 2.4 litres.

At 3.0 litres you have 0.3 litres per cylinder. 2 cylinders is 0.6 litres

3.0 - 0.6 = 2.4. So that's what you get when you go from V10 to V8.

[Mark]

Wasn't it in 1997 that the cars were made narrower? IIRC grooved tyres were introduced at the same time.

Watching a clip of Damon Hill driving his title winning Williams at Bahrain I was reminded of just how wide those cars are in comparison with what we see racing today.

As I recall the narrow cars were introduced in 1997 and the grooved tyres the year after.

[wedge]

You are right - there would need to be a complete overhaul of the formula car racing world from top to bottom. I'm just saying if people want loads of overtaking, sliding cars, close racing and so on, then that's what needs to happen. I personally am happy with the status quo thank you very much, but endless minor aero tweaks in an open formula (where engineers quite rightly will strive to negate the effects of any rule changes) will never have the desired effect.

Simply ban wings but mandatory sized shark fin for sponsorship purposes and let the engineers do what they want.

[schmenke]

...
I'd like to see KERS back - it didn't get a fair shot.

I thought that KERS is still permitted this season? :confused:

[schmenke]

I've never understood what the point of the parc ferme is. If a car has an engine problem (Ferraris) or wants to change the rear wing on both cars (Mercedes), then they're allowed to. So why stop anyone working on the car??....

As I understand, the parc-fermé rules were introduced to eliminate swapping an qualifying-spec engine for a race-spec, thereby reducing development costs. Not sure how applicable this rule is now that we have an engine-freeze.


Instead of a refuel ban, I've always liked the idea of allowing each team a specified maximum amount of fuel for the race, with a large capacity bladder in each car. Teams can then manage both their fuel and pit stop stragegies within this parameter.

[truefan72]

I'm going to pick up on this comment because there's something most people (me included) has overlooked in this thread.

In the past non-refuelling era, you had big unrestricted 3.5 litre engines with 12, 10 or 8 cylinders. And before that, unrestricted (1987/88 aside) turbos that could churn out 1000bhp in qualifying trim and were only turned down in the race so that they'd last the distance. So regardless of downforce levels you had cars that were harder to control. Now you have near-standardised, frozen, rev-limited, 2.4 litre V8s, which while giving astonishing bhp-per-litre figures, are much more reigned in than their predecessors.

The FIA has strived pretty much since 2006 to make things more and more closer, but when you narrow the performance gap between cars, then overtaking is naturally going to be harder isn't it?

Like in football, the great exciting high-scoring matches come from either two disparate or at least one poorly organised (relatively speaking) team. What happens when you get two superbly managed teams with well drilled and marshalled defences with game plans perfectly executed? Well a 0-0 draw usually. And speaking of football, you don't get pundits and managers moaning that the rules need to be changed whenever there is a 0-0 draw, football's equivalent of an F1 race with no overtaking. The race wasn't that bad.
:up: good points and an aspect I forgot about the last no-refueling era

[V12]

As I recall the narrow cars were introduced in 1997 and the grooved tyres the year after.

Nope it was 1998 for both, the '97 cars were still nicely proportioned.


I thought that KERS is still permitted this season? :confused:

It is, but some "gentlemans agreement" between the teams means it won't make an appearance. Which is indicitive of how bad things have got, where the teams are a sort of collective entity pretending to be rivals for 2 hours on a Sunday for "the show", rather than genuine rivals striving to out-do each other all the time (to the letter of the rules of course). In the past someone like Chapman would have decided to stuff it and gone for the "unfair advantage". Which of course was a misnomer since if the rules permit it, then it's as fair as you can get.

[Sonic]

I have THE solution ;)

It doesn't matter if you can't follow too closely mid corner as long as you can pick up a slipstream from that distance where the dirty air hits. At the moment the cars are too efficient and that can't happen, so how to punch a bigger hole aside from making the car shaped like bricks? Tyres!

Bring the cars back to 2m wide but make most of the extra width tyres (nice fat ones!). The extra frontal area couldn't be tidied up by aero as the wings/sidepods etc would stay their current size. The cars probably still wouldn't be able to follow close mid turn but who cares if you can pick up a tow from 60m back! :D

Tell me it won't work! :p

[rabf1]

The easiest solution for this year is to address the problem thru tires. Have a hard tire that is slippery and a super grippy tire that lasts 15-20% of race distance, at most. Basically, they need a much wider performance gap between the 2 tires.

[rabf1]

Or bring out the safety car every few laps to bunch up the cars like Indycar does.

[e2mtt]

Or bring out the safety car every few laps to bunch up the cars like Indycar does.

LOL

[e2mtt]

...
Instead of a refuel ban, I've always liked the idea of allowing each team a specified maximum amount of fuel for the race, with a large capacity bladder in each car. Teams can then manage both their fuel and pit stop stragegies within this parameter.

Now there is a good idea! No engine limits, just a limit on how much fuel can be burned during the race.

[Langdale Forest]

Or bring out the safety car every few laps to bunch up the cars like Indycar does.

And that increases the chance of someone crashing into each other, so that will make the race more interesting. ;)

[Lemmy-Boy]

Jacques Villeneuve said it right on the BBC. The FIA needs to reduce their emphasis on aero and increase the importance of mechanical grip - you just have a look at some of the archive footage on ESPN Classic to see how cars would drift around corners, often side by side.

Hamilton, Vettel, Schuey & Alonso would relish such changes as the cars would rely more toward drivers skill. F1 can still be a cutting edge series if these changes were met and reinforced.

Before the IRL destroyed AOWR, the emphasis toward mechanical grip allowed the CART series produced the most exciting races during the mid 1990's, while still maintaining the high tech nature of racing.

Even Bernie was getting nervous about CART during this time, while pushing the FIA to prevent the CART series from racing Road courses outside of the USA, except Australia.

[jens]

Never really understood, why did the FIA want to ban refueling so badly. In the end nothing changes - the fastest cars drive into the distance, which is the way it has always been. Besides this there are less opportunities to play with the strategy, because the leader(s) will do everything to cover their position and emulate the strategies of the chasers if the latters intend to do anything. As a result in Bahrain all frontrunners made their sole pitstops within 1-2 laps.

Only way to improve anything with current rules would be if Bridgestone once again developed quickly deteriorating soft tyres (like in Oz'09), but then folks would probably start complaining about artificially spicing up the show - maybe rightly so.

Two mandatory pitstops? Still nothing would change. In the last years all frontrunners made 2 stops in every race, which were mostly timed onto very similar laps.

It was about 10 years ago, when we saw interesting and varying strategies (1 vs 2 pitstops), like the famous Häkkinen v Schumacher duels. For that to happen we don't need any artificial gimmicks (race tyres/fuel in qualifying, mandatory tyres/pitstops whatever).

[Dr. Krogshöj]

Never really understood, why did the FIA want to ban refueling so badly. In the end nothing changes - the fastest cars drive into the distance, which is the way it has always been.

The refuelling ban was originally a FOTA proposal and the WMSC went along with it even though Max Mosley opposed it personally.

Funny, but not surprising, how the two "big" teams who were off the front-runners pace are the ones complaining about the "show".

There was nothing wrong with the Bahrain GP. It wasn't the most exciting race ever, but neither have been the majority of races in F1 history. Not every race can be Dijon '79.

If you can't handle racing that can be processional then you know feck all about racing and should stop following it.

I'm talking to you, Whitmarsh.

[BDunnell]

It wasn't the most exciting race ever, but neither have been the majority of races in F1 history.

A very worthwhile point. But, nonetheless, the view that a race is boring is a perfectly valid one.

Only stupid people get bored.

[BDunnell]

Only stupid people get bored.

As I have now said several times, it is notable that while the posts of many members say something about the subject in hand, those of others say rather more about the individual making the post.

[F1boat]

Only stupid people get bored.

Well, I have to admit that I wasn't bored, I was anxious, but I think that I liked the race because of the result.

[Langdale Forest]

Only stupid people get bored.

Alot more 'intelligent' people will become bored this year because of the refuelling ban. ;)

As I have now said several times, it is notable that while the posts of many members say something about the subject in hand, those of others say rather more about the individual making the post.

Your'e quite right....we should pander to the brain-dead majority of cretinous zombies who shuffle round this planet and never attempt to enjoy anything, nor can comprehend anything, that doesn't have instantaneous gratification.

[truefan72]

Or bring out the safety car every few laps to bunch up the cars like Indycar does.

lol,
debris on track!
3 laps for the pace car

spin by hulkenberg
5 laps of the pacecar

[truefan72]

The refuelling ban was originally a FOTA proposal and the WMSC went along with it even though Max Mosley opposed it personally.

yes that is true and FOTA deserves the blame for that along with refusing kers. This year after a full year of development and the ban on refueling kers would have been an effective way to try and pass cars

[truefan72]

As I have now said several times, it is notable that while the posts of many members say something about the subject in hand, those of others say rather more about the individual making the post.

:up:

it was to be expected BDunnell. I am sure that tamb also thought that the 2005 USGP was the most exciting race as well. After all Ferrari got a 1-2 there as well. I wonder what he would have said if vettel won.

[gloomyDAY]

Only stupid people get bored.
^^^

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the most bored viewer during the 2010 inaugural Grand Prix.

[Hawkmoon]

:up:

it was to be expected BDunnell. I am sure that tamb also thought that the 2005 USGP was the most exciting race as well. After all Ferrari got a 1-2 there as well. I wonder what he would have said if vettel won.

His point was that the two teams from the Big 4 doing the complaining were also the ones never in contention for the win. That's a true and valid point. Would Mercedes be so quick to call for changes if they'd scored a 1-2? What about Whitmarsh if Hamilton had led for 3/4 of the race?

It's too soon to start calling for changes. One race isn't enough as it doesn't take into account account the variable of track layout. Barcelona throws up boring race after boring race no matter the rules.

Let's give it a little time and see how things develop before shaking things up.

[truefan72]

His point was that the two teams from the Big 4 doing the complaining were also the ones never in contention for the win. That's a true and valid point. Would Mercedes be so quick to call for changes if they'd scored a 1-2? What about Whitmarsh if Hamilton had led for 3/4 of the race?

It's too soon to start calling for changes. One race isn't enough as it doesn't take into account account the variable of track layout. Barcelona throws up boring race after boring race no matter the rules.

Let's give it a little time and see how things develop before shaking things up.

would be nice if he said it the way you did without insulting all others with opposing views. There is some truth to that, but accordingly, there is also truth to the point that the races were boring and I bet you that LdM would have been the loudest voice in bemoaning the lack of overtaking and processional race if Vettel did not run into problems.

[BDunnell]

His point was that the two teams from the Big 4 doing the complaining were also the ones never in contention for the win. That's a true and valid point.

It certainly is. Shame about the comment that followed, though.

[Valve Bounce]

Only stupid people get bored.

How boring. :rolleyes:

[Mark]

A lot of posts here talking about big things that can be done, e.g. changing the aero. While all this is fine, we need something that is going to make *this* season better.

And simply loosening up the tyre rules allowing teams to use whatever they like in the races will go a long way towards that.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'll wait till after Australia. Last year only one trye worked there so maybe this will make for an interesting race this time (although articfial).

[Sonic]

Bernie is talking about letting the first 4 races pass before changes, if any, are made

[Mark]

Bernie is talking about letting the first 4 races pass before changes, if any, are made

Makes sense. But teams need to be on a warning now, that there may be changes coming.

And lets get it out of the way now. No, the changes / lack of changes are NOT to favour / against Ferrari :rolleyes:

[SGWilko]

Bernie is talking about letting the first 4 races pass before changes, if any, are made

And I think that is right. No point making knee jerk reactions until a clear pattern can be proved.

Last year, Australia proved that only one tyre help up. If that happens this year, I don't see how the race can be dull? We may even see two stops?

The point is, because of the aero STILL!, you bugger your tyres up running behind a car/trying to outbreak/overtake.

[Mark]

The point is, because of the aero STILL!, you bugger your tyres up running behind a car/trying to outbreak/overtake.

Yep, that can be helped by making tyres unlimited. e.g. You have a restricted set for qualfying and practice, but in the race you can use as many sets of whatever compounds you like!

[555-04Q2]

I have to say that the opening round of the F1 2010 season was a bit of an anti-climax for me. More boring than ever before. Cr@p track, stupid no-refueling and tyre rules, poor new teams that were an absolute farce. WTF is going on with F1 these days?

[wedge]

There was nothing wrong with the Bahrain GP. It wasn't the most exciting race ever, but neither have been the majority of races in F1 history. Not every race can be Dijon '79.

If you can't handle racing that can be processional then you know feck all about racing and should stop following it.

Agreed

A 'bad' opening race doesn't necessarily define the rest of the season.

Tamb's and James Allen's views put things in perspective:


http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/

I don’t think that this race was as bad as people are making out, but what was depressing even for someone as passionate about F1 as me, was the inescapable conclusion that all the races are likely to follow the same monotonous pattern.

There was so much hype built into this season and it seems people have completely forgotten how Vettels mechanical failure robbed us of an 'exciting' battle between him and Alonso.

Nevertheless when you have an RBR stuck behind a McLaren and Mercedes GP for over half the race then there is something wrong.

[I am evil Homer]

lol,
debris on track!
3 laps for the pace car

spin by hulkenberg
5 laps of the pacecar

I'd laugh if I didn't think Bernie was already thinking about this approach!

[ArrowsFA1]

A 'bad' opening race doesn't necessarily define the rest of the season.
That doesn't appear to be James Allen's view:

"...what was depressing even for someone as passionate about F1 as me, was the inescapable conclusion that all the races are likely to follow the same monotonous pattern."
Monotonous is not really a word that Bernie, the FIA, sponsors, drivers or fans want to see used where F1 is concerned :(

I've said elsewhere (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=765421&postcount=12) that I didn't see much difference compared to last season, but there does seem to be considerable momentum to the feeling that the Bahrain race was exceptionally poor and that something (whatever that may be) needs to be done, and soon.

[wedge]

That doesn't appear to be James Allen's view:

Monotonous is not really a word that Bernie, the FIA, sponsors, drivers or fans want to see used where F1 is concerned :(

I've said elsewhere (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=765421&postcount=12) that I didn't see much difference compared to last season, but there does seem to be considerable momentum to the feeling that the Bahrain race was exceptionally poor and that something (whatever that may be) needs to be done, and soon.

I think he's refering to tyres when he refers to monotonous. With current tyre regs we have a defined strategy rather regs that has incentive to vary the strategy


http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/03/alonso-wins-show-is-criticised-but-there-is-an-answer/

Because the soft is so much faster, around 6/10ths and degrades more quickly, it will always be the qualifying tyre, which then leads to an early first pit stop for the medium, which is the better race tyre

With tyres that are closer together, the performance difference is less and so are the wear rates and it is more attractive to try a different tactic. I’ve asked quite a few engineers tonight and they agree that it would be a step in the right direction without disadvantaging anyone.

[Mark]

Thing is as far as I can remember it was the teams that decided that the tyre you qualify on should be the one you start the race on.

[turismo6]

Simply ban wings but mandatory sized shark fin for sponsorship purposes and let the engineers do what they want.

Shark fins are design to guide air into the rear wing ... F1 cars should be engineered and not stylised, like the old A1GP or an indy car.

[V12]

Shark fins are design to guide air into the rear wing ... F1 cars should be engineered and not stylised, like the old A1GP or an indy car.

Amen to that.

Having said that, sponsorship concerns have already drove the regulations to some degree. Look at the airbox and rear wing endplates of a 2003 F1 car and compare it to a 2004 F1 car. The increased dimensions required for 2004 were solely down to the powers concerned wanting more advertising space.

[Somebody]

The last thing that should be done is specifying more mandatory pit stops. Remove the requirement to change tyres once (hell, go back to the old ways of forcing them to pick a tyre on Friday and stick with it on Saturday & Sunday), but be sure to leave a potential advantage to stopping ANYWHERE between zero and three times, rather than pushing them all in one direction.

Ultimately, he options MUST be finely balanced enough to make for multiple viable options, whereas two mandatory pitstop pushes things even further in one direction.


As I understand, the parc-fermé rules were introduced to eliminate swapping an qualifying-spec engine for a race-spec, thereby reducing development costs. Not sure how applicable this rule is now that we have an engine-freeze.
They'd already banned qualifying-spec engines, hadn't they?

The big reason for parc-fermé was to stop teams playing with fuel loads, wings, etc between qualifying & the race.

[I am evil Homer]

With the ECUs it was perfectly possible to plug a laptop in and change the mapping, so while not 'swapping' the engine you could easily 'change' it.

[Hawkmoon]

Why are people equating pitstops with exciting racing? No so long ago it was the exact opposite and people were bemoaning all the pit-passing going on.

I think they should allow the teams to use all four of the tyre compounds at each race. Mix things up a bit on Sundays rather than have them being a continuation of Saturday as they are now.

Restrict the amount of sets they can use but allow them to use whichever compund they like. That may open up the strategic side of things. If Hamilton truly is harder on his tyres than Button then he might choose a strategy that sees him make more stops on a quicker tyre whereas Button goes for less stops on a slower tyre.

Take away all the mandatory tyre use and pitstop nonsense and let the teams decide. With 12 different cars and 24 different drivers there is no way they'll pick the same tyre strategy.

[steveaki13]

Why are people equating pitstops with exciting racing? No so long ago it was the exact opposite and people were bemoaning all the pit-passing going on.

I think they should allow the teams to use all four of the tyre compounds at each race. Mix things up a bit on Sundays rather than have them being a continuation of Saturday as they are now.

Restrict the amount of sets they can use but allow them to use whichever compund they like. That may open up the strategic side of things. If Hamilton truly is harder on his tyres than Button then he might choose a strategy that sees him make more stops on a quicker tyre whereas Button goes for less stops on a slower tyre.

Take away all the mandatory tyre use and pitstop nonsense and let the teams decide. With 12 different cars and 24 different drivers there is no way they'll pick the same tyre strategy.

Couldn't agree more.

Even go as far (as said before I think) as to make the tyre compounds very different and extreme.

Super soft - 8-12 laps
Soft - 15-20 laps
Medium - 25-30 laps
Hard - 50-70 laps

Then you could use hard for trying wholes races on one set.
Medium to split race in two
and then the two soft options for an agreesive and fast strategy.

Clearly though the tyres must be on edge and even the hardest tyres must be only just able to make the whole race, so that choice is not the easy way out.

Also I feel they must not bring in mandatory 2 stops, but should throw it wide open and left up to teams and drivers also losing the current tyre rules.

[Sonic]

Anyone remember that Monza wing tested by Williams (IIRC) in the late 1990's? I can't find an image but I believe it was the FW19 that ran with a rear wing that was only about 50cms or so high.

Designed as a low drag, low downforce solution to Monza's particular demands it never raced but perhaps the FIA could look at it as a solution to permit closer running. The wings could still be standard height but the top element little more than a spoiler to create a big hole in the air.

[steveaki13]

Is this the wing you were thinking of?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v59/Muks_C/F1%20Pictures/FW19_MonzaWing.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v59/Muks_C/F1%20Pictures/FW19_MonzaWing.jpg

[Sonic]

Found an image;

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v59/Muks_C/F1%20Pictures/FW19_MonzaWing.jpg

[Sonic]

Is this the wing you were thinking of?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v59/Muks_C/F1%20Pictures/FW19_MonzaWing.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v59/Muks_C/F1%20Pictures/FW19_MonzaWing.jpg

LOL. Yes - double post!

[steveaki13]

Another thought.

I know it would probably never happen, and many may not want it too as F1 should be about hi tech as well as driver skill, but I was thinking about the return of real full on driving including Manual Gear Shift and clutch etc.

I personally feel I would like to see manual gear changing again as it is so much more of a natural driving challenge and also it can be appreciated more by normal drivers.

[steveaki13]

LOL. Yes - double post!

Good timing! :D 22:03 exactly

[Sonic]

Another thought.

I know it would probably never happen, and many may not want it too as F1 should be about hi tech as well as driver skill, but I was thinking about the return of real full on driving including Manual Gear Shift and clutch etc.

I personally feel I would like to see manual gear changing again as it is so much more of a natural driving challenge and also it can be appreciated more by normal drivers.

I agree but as you say, never gonna happen. For one thing there are drivers on the grid now who have NEVER raced a manual box in any series during their careers.

[Mia 01]

Another thought.

I know it would probably never happen, and many may not want it too as F1 should be about hi tech as well as driver skill, but I was thinking about the return of real full on driving including Manual Gear Shift and clutch etc.

I personally feel I would like to see manual gear changing again as it is so much more of a natural driving challenge and also it can be appreciated more by normal drivers.

This!
And no diffusors, at all.

[Somebody]

A "pro-aero" argument: http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/03/getting-rid-of-aero-in-f1-the-counterargument/

He also wants manual gearboxes, but also "rock hard tyres" (presumably like the super-hards currently used only for promotional activities).

[slorydn1]

Its ALL about Aero these days,isn't it?

As you can tell by my signature I am primarily a NASCAR fan, but I love F1 none the less. And as we who have followed NASCAR for years have found, its all about the areo. You can change tires, engines, rules, ,you name it....but if the car in in front can make better use of the air than the car trailing then I don't care if you have 80 more horsepower, you are not passing the car in front of you unless he makes a mistake.

I mean look at Vettel. He was 2 seconds off the pace after the header broke on his car, and it took Alonzo several turns followed by the blast down the long frontstretch to finally get by him. Heck, Rosberg was never able to get by him.

So whatya do about it?I dunno. If I did I wouldn't be sitting here typing on my decrepit old lap-top, I'd be getting paid by either NASCAR or the FIA to figure it out.

I can tell you this much....as long as the FIA allows aero devices that help the car in front at the same time hurting the trailing car, then its not going to get fixed....

[turismo6]

I'm not too sold on the rock hard tires.

[I am evil Homer]

Manual boxes will never happen. I actually think paddle shift is fine...glad it made it's way onto roadcars :)

[I am evil Homer]

A "pro-aero" argument: http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/03/getting-rid-of-aero-in-f1-the-counterargument/

He also wants manual gearboxes, but also "rock hard tyres" (presumably like the super-hards currently used only for promotional activities).

That post makes a lot of sense...as the guy says is downforce is the problem where is there no more passing in wet races, where it matters more, than in dry?

This was also interesting:

"If reducing downforce was the answer, then 1983 would have shown it, since we lost 80% of the aero efficiency in the 1983 rules, ” he says. “But there was no more overtaking than in 1982.

[V12]

"If reducing downforce was the answer, then 1983 would have shown it, since we lost 80% of the aero efficiency in the 1983 rules, ” he says. “But there was no more overtaking than in 1982.

That was under-body aero they lost though, with the banning of ground effects and mandating flat bottoms. Over-body aero (i.e. wings) is what causes the majority of turbulence, and if anything that would have been greater than in 1982 as the engineers sought to compensate.

[ShiftingGears]

"If reducing downforce was the answer, then 1983 would have shown it, since we lost 80% of the aero efficiency in the 1983 rules, ” he says. “But there was no more overtaking than in 1982.

That completely misses the point!

Reducing aero does not strictly guarantee more overtaking. It will guarantee more opportunities to overtake, because faster cars coming up on slower cars won't have that aerodynamic buffer to halt their progress.

That, and ground effects causes less turbulence than over-body aero.


His point about tyres is a valid one though.

[wedge]

The great flaw in Frank Dernie's arguement is that his proposals doesn't address the issue of following another car's wake. Other than mistakes from the car infront, you have to be significantly faster.

And the other counter-point is that we've already tried grooved tyres which arguably didn't turn out well so rock hard tyres may not necessarily be the answer.


Shark fins are design to guide air into the rear wing ... F1 cars should be engineered and not stylised, like the old A1GP or an indy car.

Who told you that?

Its for managing yaw but they're designed in such a way ie. extending close the wing planes to help the rear wing to be more efficient.


http://www.f1technical.net/development/189

As is known by now, the dorsal fin is designed to improve the efficiency when the car is in yaw. It straightens the airflow to prevent a reduction of downforce when the car is turning.