Two horse race already?

[CarlMetro]

Race one saw dominance by Ferrari, with MacLaren the only ones alble to maintain a similar pace. Race two has seen a similar story, with the roles reversed. A consistant but hardly championship challenging performance from BMW, a marked improvement from Williams but only as far as midfield, the rapid deteriation of Honda and Renault and the stagnation of Toyota and Red Bull.

All this has left me with the feeling, despite it only being two races into the new season, that it will be between MacLaren and Ferrari this year. I don't foresee any of the others making a significant enough developement in performance to challenge either team.

Still at least we have a two-way battle.

[Caroline]

I tend to agree. Renault have hardly made an eyecatching start to the season. Honda....erm, not too sure what to say about them. I am wondering though if Nick Heidfeld may well sneak in some poles and an occasional win somewhere. He seems to be driving confidently.

I don't mind it being a two way battle when you have the likes of Alonso and Raikkonen though :)

[raphael123]

Yep, just like in 2006, 2005, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994 etc.

What is different about it? The only exception in the last say 15yrs is that in 1992, 1993, 2002 & 2004 there was only ONE team in with the hunt of the title - even worse and more boring! So apart from 2003, where Williams McLaren and Ferrari were fighting, it always is a two horse race isn't it? :) It doesn't conclude it will be a dull season, unless you've found most of the championships dull. Though 2003 was a great season, as there were so many teams who could compete at the top, even if it was marred a bit by the Michelin controversy.

[Donney]

I expect BMW to play an important role in the championship as they'll take away some vital points.

But, yes mainly a two horse battle. (make it four since both tems have very capable drivers) ;)

[DimitraF1]

i think that ferrari will dominate ,mclaren will win 2-3 races more

[jens]

Yeah, during the last couple of decades it really has been one- or a two (three at best) horse races...

I wonder whether once comes a day, when early 80s come back - a five horse race! Oh, we can only dream about it at the moment...

And I also wonder, how was it then possible to have so many top teams (Brabham, Renault, Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and also some others occasionally challenged for top positions) and why has something like that never repeated again?

[Caroline]

And I also wonder, how was it then possible to have so many top teams (Brabham, Renault, Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and also some others occasionally challenged for top positions) and why has something like that never repeated again?

Money, stable regulations, different expectations...I guess they all play a part. Money isn't everything - look at Toyota - but it helps with the development of the car.

[Ranger]

Yeah, during the last couple of decades it really has been one- or a two (three at best) horse races...

I wonder whether once comes a day, when early 80s come back - a five horse race! Oh, we can only dream about it at the moment...

And I also wonder, how was it then possible to have so many top teams (Brabham, Renault, Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and also some others occasionally challenged for top positions) and why has something like that never repeated again?

I'm sure there will be a year of competition like 1983 or, even better, 1982 again. Though it would have to be down to lots of teams getting it "wrong" with reliability issues so as more teams can be closer to the top.

It has happened recently in other racing categories in recent years though.

In the 2001 World Rally Championship there was 8 different event winners in the 14 rounds of the championship, with 4 drivers in contention for the championship at the final round.

So it's not impossible, but highly unlikely, considering the amount of money teams spend these days.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I'm hoping for a close two-way scrap between McLaren and Ferrari. Hopefully, teams like BMW and maybe Williams will be able to trouble the leaders on certain circuits. I also predict (whilst bracing myself for ridicule) that Honda will be competing for podiums in the final 3rd of the season.

[555-04Q2]

Race one saw dominance by Ferrari, with MacLaren the only ones alble to maintain a similar pace. Race two has seen a similar story, with the roles reversed. A consistant but hardly championship challenging performance from BMW, a marked improvement from Williams but only as far as midfield, the rapid deteriation of Honda and Renault and the stagnation of Toyota and Red Bull.

All this has left me with the feeling, despite it only being two races into the new season, that it will be between MacLaren and Ferrari this year. I don't foresee any of the others making a significant enough developement in performance to challenge either team.

Still at least we have a two-way battle.

It must be said that I would prefer to see 8 different teams win in a season to make it more interesting. Maybe we need the reverse grid system to liven it up a bit.

[raphael123]

It must be said that I would prefer to see 8 different teams win in a season to make it more interesting. Maybe we need the reverse grid system to liven it up a bit.

I HATE that idea!!

[555-04Q2]

I HATE that idea!!

So do I but the current format is...ummm.....well....not providing us with true wheel to wheel racing. I can play follow my leader in my driveway at home. Here these guys have 300 km/h + cars on a race track and they dont/cant overtake. Give them insentive to pass, put a couple of Super Aguri's in front of them for 10 laps without a blue flag.

[ShiftingGears]

So do I but the current format is...ummm.....well....not providing us with true wheel to wheel racing. I can play follow my leader in my driveway at home. Here these guys have 300 km/h + cars on a race track and they dont/cant overtake. Give them insentive to pass, put a couple of Super Aguri's in front of them for 10 laps without a blue flag.

Yeah but instead of screwing up the idea thats worked for 70+ years that you earn your position at the front of the grid with the reverse grid gimmick, the FIA instead needs to do something about the technology in the sport, such as the winglets, narrow cars, grooved tyres, etc etc.

Gimmicks like reverse grids are bandaid solutions that won't solve the problem.
It isn't the format, its the technology.

[raphael123]

I agree with theugsquirrel here. It's not the fact the fastest start first and the slowest start last that stops overtaking, it's the technology and aerodynamics of the cars.

If all you want is wheel to wheel racing there are many other formula's which can provide you with that.

Also I think it'd be wrong to penalise guys who do the best jobs.

Reverse order grid really really really would be a last resort thing!! Similar to that of the weight theory, where if you win, weight is added to your car, until you stop winning. They have it in BTCC, and though it has made the racing exciting, it's been manipulated, fabricated in a way. I would much rather it like it use to be!

[ArrowsFA1]

Gimmicks like reverse grids are bandaid solutions that won't solve the problem.
I agree 100% :up:

Perhaps Max could explain sometime why, when the FIA change the regs so frequently, they do nothing about aerodynamics :mad: He wants to cut costs and yet teams build more bigger and better wind tunnels which only succeed in making the cars butt ugly and stifle the racing :crazy:

[555-04Q2]

It isn't the format, its the technology.

F1 has been technology driven for a long time. We used to get overtaking in the old days as you know even with technologhy in the sport. Technology combined with safety issues are the reason for the lack of real racing. Get rid of Bernie, Max, the GPDA and aero packages and, POOF, we will have overtaking again.

[F1boat]

I agree 100% :up:

Perhaps Max could explain sometime why, when the FIA change the regs so frequently, they do nothing about aerodynamics :mad: He wants to cut costs and yet teams build more bigger and better wind tunnels which only succeed in making the cars butt ugly and stifle the racing :crazy:

Actually I love the form of modern cars. I detest that this form is hidden, however, hidden under various...things, which grow from the car like tentacles.

[aryan]

I wonder whether once comes a day, when early 80s come back - a five horse race! Oh, we can only dream about it at the moment...

Two reasons I can think of.

Until the early 80s, teams had extremely poor reliabilites. There were teams which were fast but unreliable (taking it over the limit), and slower cars with more reliability. Sometimes faster cars won, sometimes they broke down and others won, hence you had multiple contenders in terms of championship.

Since then, reliability has improved year by year. There was a race (I think Monza 2005) in which there were no DNFs.

The second reason IMO is that until the early 80s, the regulations were rather loose and teams had more room to think out of the box and implement alternative designs, so the cars were very different from each other. Some of these cars performed better on some circuits, others on other circuits.

Since then, the rules have virtually fixed the mechanical underlyings of the cars, so all cars nealy perform equal on all circuits. The only variation most of the times is only in terms of aero, hence you have the current situation where all of the field is within 2 seconds a lap of each other, and 90% of that difference is made up of aero.

Just my 0.02 cents, I am not old enough to have actually watched the 82 or 83 seasons.

[F1boat]

BTW before judging that the fight will be only between McLaren and Ferrari, let's wait till Spain. In the beginning of 2005, Renault seemed to dominate, followed by Toyota and Ferrari, but then McLaren created a monster.
After the huge brake after Bahrain, we might see BMW or Renault improving their pace, or McLaren or Ferrari losing too much ground - so it still could be one-horse or 4-horse race. Unlikely to happen, but possible.

[wedge]

Until the early 80s, teams had extremely poor reliabilites. There were teams which were fast but unreliable (taking it over the limit), and slower cars with more reliability. Sometimes faster cars won, sometimes they broke down and others won, hence you had multiple contenders in terms of championship.

The 1980s was when teams started messing with ECU and experimenting with hydraulics. Quite naturally in the 80s and 90s there were loads of transmission and hydraulics failures.

Mansell absolutely hated driving the first of the Williams with Active Suspension and Semi-Automatic Gearbox. He thought it was completely useless because it was they very unreliable and kept braking down, whereas Patrick Head wanted Mansell to persevere with it so they could develop the system.

It probably wasn't until the mid or latter half of the 1990s that the transmission became ultra-reliable and its been the last 6/7years that flappy paddle gears are becoming standard on 'normal' road cars.


I agree 100% :up:

Perhaps Max could explain sometime why, when the FIA change the regs so frequently, they do nothing about aerodynamics :mad: He wants to cut costs and yet teams build more bigger and better wind tunnels which only succeed in making the cars butt ugly and stifle the racing :crazy:

Have you seen the IRL cars? They have an interesting aero-package.

They are butt ugly, but it should be where F1 should be. More drag for bigger holes in the air.

But F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of technology. There are elitists like Ron Dennis who want to keep it that way. The manufacturers have an enormous stake in F1 these days, why should they work with inferior technology? I suspect the manufacturers would rather walk-out and then where would F1 be?

[OmarF1]

I just have one "maybe stupid" question, but how much the lack of overtaking in our F1 era are because of the use of carbon brakes?

[ArrowsFA1]

I think that's a big factor OmarF1.

[jens]

I'd like to add one more explanation to your early 80s tight championship battles. Then we had competition between turbo and non-turbo engines and at that time turbo engines were not unbeatable in overall yet. It meant that turbo-powered cars won usually on faster circuits and non-turbos on twistier circuits. And of course the more powerful turbos were a lot more unreliable, which created more chances for "non-turbos" to beat them with consistency.

But as since 1983-4 turbo engines started dominating, then sadly it marked the end for those legendary tight championship battles.

[trumperZ06]

;) You use Aerodynamics to generate.... downforce. You use Speed creating air pressure... to push against the Aerodynamic devices. If you reduce speed the downforce quickly dis-appears... greatly reducing traction... which reduces your cornering ability.

Cars with less aero than Formula 1 use...

Late braking as you are approaching the corner... and then trail braking (allows you to carry more speed at corner entry & helps to rotate the car), this works well for sportscars including ALMS LP1...

For example... McNish trail-brakes the Hell out of the Audi at Sebring, and Sebring is a high horsepower track.

But this is opposite the technique to that used in F-1.... which uses high entry speeds, high cornering speeds, both enabled by the areo generated downforce, and electronic traction control for accelerating out of the corners.

In Formula 1, unless the lead driver makes a mistake, it's hard for even a driver with a faster car to make a pass in the corners. Now add groved tires which are far more "skitterish" when subjected to large slip angles... compared to full "slicks"... and you see even more complications.

[tinchote]

I'd like to add one more explanation to your early 80s tight championship battles. Then we had competition between turbo and non-turbo engines and at that time turbo engines were not unbeatable in overall yet. It meant that turbo-powered cars won usually on faster circuits and non-turbos on twistier circuits. And of course the more powerful turbos were a lot more unreliable, which created more chances for "non-turbos" to beat them with consistency.



Let me add to that that in those times there were frequent changes of rules, even during the season, and other situations that changed who was in position of dominating a race (some examples: no skirts from 81-82, then Gordon Murray comes with the hydropneumatic suspension, which ends up banned soon after; also consider the appearance of the Lotus 88, which was protested by the other teams without specifying which rule it was violating, and the protest was accepted and the car banned without ever stating which rule was being violated; changes of tyre provider in the middle of the season; a race declared invalid after it was raced; boycotts to races in the middle of the FISA-FOCA war).

[wedge]

To a certain degree I would disagree with you, trumperZ06.

Today's cars produce so much grip from the tyres and aero, and thanks to carbon brakes and semi-auto transmission you brake so deep into the corners.

There was an article in F1 Racing magazine not so long ago where Christian drove a Super Aguri. He said modern F1 cars are so easy to drive because you simply left-brake as close to the apex as you dare and press hard on the throttle.

Depending on a driver's driving style it is still possible to trail brake in F1 cars.

Just like Senna mastering a turbo-F1 car with superb co-ordination, Schumi mastered the art of left-foot braking by dancing on the brake and throttle like a tap dancer. He loves his karting and he was one of those drivers who braked extremely late and flicked the kart into the apex. Its quite obvious he refined those techniques for F1. Schumi likes a bit of oversteer, can drive on the limit, great car control - its no wonder an F1 driver like him and can afford to trail brake into corners.

[trumperZ06]

;) Wedge.... there is a HUGE difference between... Trail braking and what Schui was doing...

MS was left-foot braking and using his right foot for... maintainance throttle!!!

Trail braking... hard on the brakes at corner entry (no throttle moderation), gradually reducing the braking force while increasing cornering angle, rotating the car down to the apex. If your really good... you can start adding throttle well before hitting the apex... but after you have completed trail braking.

We have DAS charts showing that... MS was using both braking & throttle moderation... ie. balancing the car in mid-corner...
enabling him to carry higher entry and especially... mid corner speeds.

Almost all the F-1 drivers at the top level can late brake to corner entry, and accelerate flat out from apex to track out ( remember they have traction control systems), it was the speed MS was able to carry in mid corner... that seperated him from the pack.

Rubens tried left foot braking early in his Ferrari F-1 days... but RB was never able to work it well. Even though Rubens started in carting, which easily allows left foot braking, he never has been very good at left foot braking in an F-1 machine.

We also have DAS comparing MS's cornering technique ie. left foot braking/right foot throttle vs. Rubens... who takes his right foot off the throttle to brake. MS was consistantly faster in mid corner thoughout their days... driving identical Ferrari's.

Oh... and high aero downforce requires greater speed than you would see at the apex... using trailing throttle to rotate the car. In fact... lift throttle "over-steer" works much better in an F-1 machine. Lift-throttle over-steer enables you to rotate the car without scubbing off speed.

Without the F-1 Aerodynamic systems.... F-1 cars would probably be driven simular to sportscars ie. using a lot of trail braking... (we also use lift throttle oversteer... but not nearly as often), but with F-1's superb Aero... this simply is not the case. Your goal with an F-1 machine... keep the downforce working by mininizing airflow disruption.

Cya @ the track,

Trumper

[BeansBeansBeans]

Mansell absolutely hated driving the first of the Williams with Active Suspension and Semi-Automatic Gearbox. He thought it was completely useless because it was they very unreliable and kept braking down, whereas Patrick Head wanted Mansell to persevere with it so they could develop the system.

Yes, as I recall, Mansell retired from the first 4 Grands Prix of 1991, allowing Senna to build up a cushion in the Championship. Still, as you say, they persevered, and came good in 1992.

[wedge]

;) Wedge.... there is a HUGE difference between... Trail braking and what Schui was doing...

MS was left-foot braking and using his right foot for... maintainance throttle!!!

Trail braking... hard on the brakes at corner entry (no throttle moderation), gradually reducing the braking force while increasing cornering angle, rotating the car down to the apex. If your really good... you can start adding throttle well before hitting the apex... but after you have completed trail braking.

We have DAS charts showing that... MS was using both braking & throttle moderation... ie. balancing the car in mid-corner...
enabling him to carry higher entry and especially... mid corner speeds.


I knew this too.

I do remember F1 Racing did an article covering his driving technique in the late 90s. They had access to data from the Belgium GP.

Schumi uses that technique on the mid to hi-speed corners where he taps the brakes and 'caresses' the throttle at mid-corner. (The article mentioned Pouhon and Stavelot where he impressively used this technique)

It was in the low speed, hairpin-type corners such as La Source,where Schumi braked awefully deep, point the car onto the apex and slam the throttle. In the low speed corners you're having to rely more on mechanical grip rather than aero.

I'm pretty sure he was trail-braking.

Seriously, I'm not making any of this up. In the mid-late 90s I was absolutely fascinated by Schumi's technique, I wanted to understand why he was regarded as superior.

Sadly I've thrown this particular issue away so it would help if any of you have back issues!

[markhuebbe]

I expect BMW to play an important role in the championship as they'll take away some vital points.


I couldn't agree more. But I hope my boy Heidfeld might make it interesting this year.

[trumperZ06]

I knew this too.

I do remember F1 Racing did an article covering his driving technique in the late 90s. They had access to data from the Belgium GP.

Schumi uses that technique on the mid to hi-speed corners where he taps the brakes and 'caresses' the throttle at mid-corner. (The article mentioned Pouhon and Stavelot where he impressively used this technique)

It was in the low speed, hairpin-type corners such as La Source,where Schumi braked awefully deep, point the car onto the apex and slam the throttle. In the low speed corners you're having to rely more on mechanical grip rather than aero.

I'm pretty sure he was trail-braking.

Seriously, I'm not making any of this up. In the mid-late 90s I was absolutely fascinated by Schumi's technique, I wanted to understand why he was regarded as superior.

Sadly I've thrown this particular issue away so it would help if any of you have back issues!


:D Hey Wedge, this is one of the better discussions we've seen on this site... on driver technique.

You are correct... extremely low speed corners like hairpins... are the exception. These guys will trail brake from corner entry until they have rotated the car... usually just before the apex... then they jump on the throttle... using the aid of traction control... and accelerate to the track out position. Aero falls of rapidly as you reduce speed, so there's not much/if any, aero downforce in low speed hairpin's. Low speed corners bring out the advantage of using "lift-throttle oversteer", you accomplish car rotation without scrubbing off the speed you lose in trail braking. The margin of error when using lift throttle over-steer is very small.

;) Next year, if the FIA forces the removal of traction control, we are likely to see great improvement with some drivers, others will have their hands full... trying to keep from spinning... or they will be Dog Slow.

[wedge]

:D Hey Wedge, this is one of the better discussions we've seen on this site... on driver technique.

You are correct... extremely low speed corners like hairpins... are the exception. These guys will trail brake from corner entry until they have rotated the car... usually just before the apex... then they jump on the throttle... using the aid of traction control... and accelerate to the track out position. Aero falls of rapidly as you reduce speed, so there's not much/if any, aero downforce in low speed hairpin's. Low speed corners bring out the advantage of using "lift-throttle oversteer", you accomplish car rotation without scrubbing off the speed you lose in trail braking. The margin of error when using lift throttle over-steer is very small.

;) Next year, if the FIA forces the removal of traction control, we are likely to see great improvement with some drivers, others will have their hands full... trying to keep from spinning... or they will be Dog Slow.

Thanks to Schumi I have great interest in driving techniques!

I would've thought lift-oversteer has a great margin of error because you need tremendous car control and quick reflexes. Mansell taught himself this technique because he always had poor equipment when he rose up the motorsport ladder. He would usually set the car up with little rear wing as possible and hussle the car into the corners. Mansell has been regarded as having tremendous reflexes and upper body strength which was why he could handle a car on the absolute limit.

And yes I can't wait for next year!

Matt Bishop mentions how Lewis Hamilton was taught by his father how to brake as late as possible in his karting days. Anthony Hamilton would stand on the edge of the track and Lewis would use his dad as his braking point and Lewis would learn car control under braking/decelaration!

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/downloadtrial/fivelive/thechequeredflag/thechequeredflag_20070408-1700_40_st.mp3

[trumperZ06]

;) Wedge, I think we are confused by a common language.... English.

"The margin of error when using lift thottle over-steer is very small"...

My meaning is that you have to be damn near perfect... when using lift throttle over-steer... which is why it's almost always only used in slow/low speed corners.