Manufactured Competition is it Good for the Sport?

[Airhead]

Originally Posted by Bononi

Hi mate long time no see ! How's Luke ?

Doing well, still one kid who is into Karate.

[Spritle]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Personally, I couldn't give two figs if F1 ended up 10 seconds per lap slower than a GP2 car. Other series aren't called F1.

Why would anybody compete in a series that is 10 seconds slower and 10,000 times more expensive...

.. just because it is called F1?

If that is the case I would assume the "F" stood for Fool.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Spritle

Why would anybody compete in a series that is 10 seconds slower and 10,000 times more expensive...

.. just because it is called F1?

If that is the case I would assume the "F" stood for Fool.

Currently it is about 1/100 faster and 10 000 times more expensive.

It would be far better if you made it cheaper and had a series of qualifying heats followed by a GP.
This would ensure that the back half of the grid were not just franchisees and poseurs collecting revenue! But I guess that is a whole new debate.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by JamesH

But then the drivers would all want to race in GP2!!

The problem with, as some have requested in the past, wanting pure racing, is that its impossible (in F1 - try FFord instead). And not for the reasons most would quote, but for the reason that the cars would be so good that the drivers would not be able to drive them. With pure aero, pure engines, pure tyres, cornering G force would be in double figures. No-one can survive that for any length of time. Of course, they could just drive them from simulators. Would that be acceptable?

There is a massive difference between limiting technical rules and manufacturing competition through sporting regulations. Most critics have problems with the latter, not the former.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by wnut

Currently it is about 1/100 faster and 10 000 times more expensive.

OT: which series is within 1/100s?

[Marbot]

I think that the Singapore GP would have been extremely processional had it not been for the DRS. Just an observation. That's not to say that DRS is a very good thing, but it does suggest that without it, F1 cars have problems overtaking other F1 cars. Particularly on circuits like Singapore.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

I think that the Singapore GP would have been extremely processional had it not been for the DRS. Just an observation. That's not to say that DRS is a very good thing, but it does suggest that without it, F1 cars have problems overtaking other F1 cars. Particularly on circuits like Singapore.

It's a good observation..DRS has made overtaking possible, I am lost because these are the best brains in the world of motor sport..

This is not a put down, as they are the very best...

[Purist]

Then how come there were quite a number of passes shown, at parts of the track where DRS was NOT a factor?

[formerf1champ]

OP, the fact you asked the question in the first place means the answer is "no". I don't know about anybody else, I remember F1 before it's first attempt at manufactured racing, the year being '94 when they took out all the new tech. bits out of the cars and introduced mandtory pit-stops, to somewhat blunt the increasing popularity of Indycar racing. Races were predictable then, but only because Williams were destroying everyone with the active suspension of the FW14B/15C, not necessarily because there was something wrong with rules regarding building the cars or on-track etiquette. Races were allowed to develop a natural form and had Williams not mastered the act. sus. tech. then the races would've been, for the most part, entertaining enough. Since then, further and further restrictions on the cars (except aero), and unnecessary rules like having to use two compounds of tyres (Why? tyre manufacturers didn't construct multiple compounds in the first place for that purpose) and asking Pirelli to supply dodgy tyres has led to the mickey mouse, unnatural form of racing we see today and you asking this question. What I'm trying to say is, I think current day racing is more of a result of a band-aid fix from a problem years ago, that led to another problem which required another band-aid and so on. The result of current day F1 is full of band-aid solutions if you get what I'm trying to say? Just got to rip all the band-aids off, I wonder if Williams/Head/Newey knew then, the mess they have created for F1 the following 18 years?

[wnut]

The whole problem goes back to aerodynamics in racing.
Everything and all the band aid solutions relate to this problem, and cost.

[John Turner]

Yep, aerodynamics/dirty air/short braking distances etc all created through technological advances means that, inevitably, balancing out has to be through technology too. So you could argue that this is natural evolution rather than artificial aid. And, I'm an old git, who remembers GP racing in the 50's, just for the record. I've enjoyed some of the racing this year far more than in recent years.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Yep, aerodynamics/dirty air/short braking distances etc all created through technological advances means that, inevitably, balancing out has to be through technology too. So you could argue that this is natural evolution rather than artificial aid. And, I'm an old git, who remembers GP racing in the 50's, just for the record. I've enjoyed some of the racing this year far more than in recent years.

I personally think that DRS is a great solution and I think that this year has possibly been the best year of F1 racing I have ever seen; despite Vettel runninig away with the title. Hopefully the new rules don't spoil it!

All that DRS does is give back some of the advantage generated by the wake of the leading car - as you say John a tech solution to a tech problem!

[MagnetON]

I'm sure I'll get shot down here, but.... I LIKE it all! I like DRS, KERS, Tyres, it's all extra stuff that the driver has to bring to the party and use properly to get the results. The thing I'd change with DRS is to let the brave use it at any point on the lap. Already get to do it in qually so let's see them make use of it in the race! Not sure if I'd want to see it as a "4 DRS's per lap" or as a total "unlimited", probably the former, again, to make drivers think creatively about when to use it.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by Purist

Then how come there were quite a number of passes shown, at parts of the track where DRS was NOT a factor?

I get the feeling that sometimes people don't really bother defending anymore, because they know they don't stand a chance when they get to the DRS zone next time round anyway. Sutil effectively waving Hamilton by comes to mind as an example.

[MagnetON]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

Sutil effectively waving Hamilton by comes to mind as an example.

Given Hammys previous form this year it could be considered a safety move by Sooty, let him past or end up with a puncture.... difficult choice!

[luke g28]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

I get the feeling that sometimes people don't really bother defending anymore, because they know they don't stand a chance when they get to the DRS zone next time round anyway. Sutil effectively waving Hamilton by comes to mind as an example.

The DRS only lets cars that are significantly faster past, normally a second per lap. If both cars are of a similar speed then it is much less effective as the cars will either trade positions back and fourth or will not be able to squeeze past. The anomally is when a car with a higher top end can neutralise the DRS effect ie TGF in Monza.

The overlooked upside of the DRS is that it lets the pursuing driver stay much closer throughout the remainder of the lap thus increasing overtakes all over the circuit not just on the DRS straight.

I too would like to see it being used whenever the driver feels they can as in qualifying. However this would make it less effective as the leading driver would also get the drag reduction.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by luke g28

I too would like to see it being used whenever the driver feels they can as in qualifying. However this would make it less effective as the leading driver would also get the drag reduction.

In that case I would have no problem whatsoever with it. It would be just another variable that rewards skill (enough grip/bravery to open it sooner/leave it open longer than the other guy) instead of an automatic punishment for being ahead.

[racer69]

All i'll say is that pressing a button on a steering wheel so your wing flips up or your car gets a 'boost' of horsepower, meaning you breeze past the car infront before a braking zone, is not 'overtaking', nor is it exciting, its a free gift to overtake....

How stupid was it at Spa when Webber rounded Alonso up at Eau Rouge... yet the next lap Alonso just pressed a button and past he went...

I'd like DRS more if you could use it when you wanted, not when you are allowed too.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Yep, aerodynamics/dirty air/short braking distances etc all created through technological advances means that, inevitably, balancing out has to be through technology too. So you could argue that this is natural evolution rather than artificial aid. And, I'm an old git, who remembers GP racing in the 50's, just for the record. I've enjoyed some of the racing this year far more than in recent years.

Phwoar!...Really? When people start talking about GP racing in those days, its like Archaeologists talking about the Dinosaur ages to me! Just to confirm in my mind, Was the world title as taken seriously as it is nowadays? I get the impression individual races wins were taken more seriously than today, where they are just a part of the series.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Purist

Then how come there were quite a number of passes shown, at parts of the track where DRS was NOT a factor?

thats the million dollar question!

please correct me if i am wrong but one of the additional benefits of DRS is keeping two cars of similar speed close together after the DRS zone ends which ultimately leads to closer racing for the remainder of the lap and thus leads to more overtakes in places where we never saw them in the past. no more dirty air problems

granted this is not a natural evolution of racing technology and is most certainly highlights the difference between the technical and the sporting regulations but i would argue is this not the point of the sporting regs?...to mitigate the disadvantages caused by and only discovered once the cars have been built and raced. has this not always been the case through the years?

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by luke g28

The DRS only lets cars that are significantly faster past, normally a second per lap. If both cars are of a similar speed then it is much less effective as the cars will either trade positions back and fourth or will not be able to squeeze past.

I am quoting you, not to argue against you, but to ask the question:

How many times this year have we seen a driver overtake using the DRS only to be re-passed a lap later? Not that many times, in my recollection.

The DRS seems to allow faster car/driver combinations to pass slower driver/car combinations. Isn't that what Grand Prix Racing should be about?

Or should it be about slower driver/car combinations frustrating faster driver/car combinations (and the spectator) for lap after lap - or indeed the duration of a Grand Prix?

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by phoenix

I am quoting you, not to argue against you, but to ask the question:

How many times this year have we seen a driver overtake using the DRS only to be re-passed a lap later? Not that many times, in my recollection.

The DRS seems to allow faster car/driver combinations to pass slower driver/car combinations. Isn't that what Grand Prix Racing should be about?

Or should it be about slower driver/car combinations frustrating faster driver/car combinations (and the spectator) for lap after lap - or indeed the duration of a Grand Prix?

The ludicrous levels of downforce in F1 have been the cause of many problems in F1.
1. Wake spoiling the aerodynamics of a following car
2. Short braking distances
3. High cornering speeds necessitating vast run-off areas to provide reasonable safety.

In an ideal world F1 would get rid of downforce aerodynamics, but that would introduce many new problems. We would all be saying how sloowwwwwww it is, and any competing category that retained downforce (we always seem to quote Indycars) would be in a good position to take over the "premier racing series" mantle. Therefore a device that partially negates the negative impact of downforce aerodynamics can only be a good thing.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

Phwoar!...Really? When people start talking about GP racing in those days, its like Archaeologists talking about the Dinosaur ages to me! Just to confirm in my mind, Was the world title as taken seriously as it is nowadays? I get the impression individual races wins were taken more seriously than today, where they are just a part of the series.

This post is just gauche!

Yes the WDC was even more important than today!

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by wnut

This post is just gauche!

Yes the WDC was even more important than today!

First of all, I did not ask you.

Secondly, I have read/watched a number of articles/documentries and it's been alluded that this was the case.

Thirdly, Mike Hawthorne, a world champ, won few races and isn't held in the same esteem as Stirling Moss who, as you know, won many races in and out of F1, but no title (even taking into account Hawthorne died decades ago and Moss is still present).

Fourthly, slightly connected to point two, back in the day, as John Turner may confirm, within the GP Motorbike racing community, apparently winning the Isle of Man TT, despite it being part of the world championship, received more credibilty and praise than winning the world title (similiar to saying a GP win at the Nurburging is better than winning the world title). There may have been a correlation.

Fifthly, the world, as far as I'm aware, was as much bigger place then as it is now, and as far as communities are concerned, events that occurred outside your own community, or country, wasn't as significant as what happened within your community/country. Couldn't take pot shots at someone from another country then, as you can do over the internet now.

And lastly, if something confuses you, ask a question for clarification, otherwise don't be so smug.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

Thirdly, Mike Hawthorne, a world champ, won few races and isn't held in the same esteem as Stirling Moss who, as you know, won many races in and out of F1, but no title (even taking into account Hawthorne died decades ago and Moss is still present).

Fourthly, slightly connected to point two, back in the day, as John Turner may confirm, within the GP Motorbike racing community, apparently winning the Isle of Man TT, despite it being part of the world championship, received more credibilty and praise than winning the world title (similiar to saying a GP win at the Nurburging is better than winning the world title). There may have been a correlation.

Yes, 1958 was when Hawthorn won the Championship. The irony is that he only won a single GP that year, whilst Moss won 4, and Tony Brooks, 3. After that year, Moss said that he never again attached quite the same level of importance to the Championship, and you could hardly blame him, but 'yes', on the whole it was regarded as important but to a smaller audience. True to say, I guess, that certain GP wins (Monaco, Nurburgring, Spa) were regarded as more important than others, rather as some are today, although not sure whether wins in them had higher kudos than the WDC.