Something has to change

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by marzF1rocks

i dont think the racing boring, i think sometimes the coverege we get could be better.

this was mentioned earlier but this is easily the best and most implementable solution to the problem.

there was action we just didnt see it. we had an entire 2nd stint with JV/GF and JPM neck and neck and also CK(IIRC)/ and NH going at it and the race director ingnored almost all of it. maybe showing the race with a 10-15min delay so they can plan a little better would be a good change.

[Dutton]

No, no, no...no delay, please!

It is not the same.

[Knowlesy]

We wouldn't be able to utilise live timing! Outrageous!

[Bononi]

And who said there isn't already a 3 minute delay ?

[Dutton]

They'd just have to offer delayed timing too, .

It just ain't the same if things are delayed. You know what you are watching cannot turn out any other way, but when it is live you know that anything could happen.

Already a 3-minute delay? Um, well, I guess you can speculate on that...except there isn't...

[chillibowl]

thats true, didn't think about the live timing thing (which they should really let us control with play/pause - and start when we on this side of the pond whatch the race on replay anyways)

[Dutton]

Well, chilli, I am on your side of the pond and I watch it live!

[chillibowl]

well Dutton, you are a braver man than me i must say
6:30 am 2 days in a row really hurts me.

[DeoValente]

Originally Posted by The Monster

When the FIA announced the knee jerk 1998 regs to slow the cars down by reducing the track width and banishing slick tyres it made me really very angry, as it was obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that it would be bad for the racing. They could have easily reduced corner speeds by by cutting back on the aero, but they instead insisted on attacking the tyres and chassis.
The only positive change the FIA made to F1's regs in recent years, was in 2001 when they slightly raised the front wing, and also reduced the rear wing to a maximum of 3 elements down from 7 (I think). This coupled with the softer tyres due to competition between Bridgestone and Michelin made the cars race slightly better IMO.

.

You make some good points. Id like to clear a few things that dont seem entirely correct in your statement. Reducing the track width has made the front and rearwings smaller, thus cut down aero downforce. I totally agree there should have been more drastic measures but you are giving a big argument already, that it would make problems of advertising. Funnily enough in these days of big corporations throwing in hundreds of millions of dollars, the commercial side is getting to be a minor one. Perhaps a small rearwing makes sense. But to say they (FIA) should have done that earlier is blaming the wrong party. The concorde agreement made sure those changes could only be made with 100% agreement of ALL teams. If Stoddart put his money where his mouth was, traction control would never have been allowed back into F1. And the frontwing was raised for the 2000 season, i remember a mclaren being disqualified at some brasilrace bcs it (the frontwing) was too low. It was raised even more for 2001. At the moment though, cutting aerodownforce by, say 50 or 60%, would probably be the end of all major players in F1, simply cs they would be mad (with the FIA) for investing billions into expensive windtunnels and bcs of those new regulations they would become useless.

I also agree the tyrewar made overtaking a bit more possible but overall i think the cars are simply too fast and run on tracks that dont support any overtaking.

[Bononi]

I'm not quite sure, I saw it somewhere, any live feed has a 3-minute delay. It's not just for F1.

[Dutton]

Well, the live-timing on the internet must be delayed by three minutes too in that case...

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by DeoValente

You make some good points. Id like to clear a few things that dont seem entirely correct in your statement. Reducing the track width has made the front and rearwings smaller, thus cut down aero downforce.

I'm sorry, but I believe this to be incorrect.

When they narrowed the track width all they did was bring the suspension and wheels closer to the chassis, the wings I believe were actually the same length.
The wheels used to be almost entirely outside the bodywork, now they are more internal (but still open wheelers).

Originally Posted by DeoValente

. But to say they (FIA) should have done that earlier is blaming the wrong party. The concorde agreement made sure those changes could only be made with 100% agreement of ALL teams. If Stoddart put his money where his mouth was, traction control would never have been allowed back into F1. And the frontwing was raised for the 2000 season, i remember a mclaren being disqualified at some brasilrace bcs it (the frontwing) was too low.

Correct, except the FIA can and did make changes in the name of safety, which it can *force* through, just like when they altered the rear wing assembly for the 2001 season.
I don't remember the front wing being altered for the 2000 season.

Originally Posted by DeoValente

At the moment though, cutting aerodownforce by, say 50 or 60%, would probably be the end of all major players in F1, simply cs they would be mad (with the FIA) for investing billions into expensive windtunnels and bcs of those new regulations they would become useless.

Why though? Ross Brawn came out and admitted in the pre season that he has no idea why we have so much downforce on F1 cars, its just totally to the detriment of the racing, there is no need for it.
Also I don't agree that the car makers will abandon F1 simply because they only have 40% of the downforce to play with, it simply gives them another challenge to make a more slippery car, windtunnels if anything will be more essential to claw back what they have lost in terms of aero.

(Phew, I think thats the longest post ive ever written, im usually a 2 sentance man).

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Dutton

Already a 3-minute delay? Um, well, I guess you can speculate on that...except there isn't...

Sorry guys, it's a mistake, obviously I have misread or something, it seems to be technical stuff related to satellite transmission, and that's a delay up to 30 secs depending on the numbers of re-transmissions from earth to satellites to others satellites and back to earth...

[DeoValente]

Originally Posted by The Monster

I'm sorry, but I believe this to be incorrect.

When they narrowed the track width all they did was bring the suspension and wheels closer to the chassis, the wings I believe were actually the same length.
The wheels used to be almost entirely outside the bodywork, now they are more internal (but still open wheelers).



Correct, except the FIA can and did make changes in the name of safety, which it can *force* through, just like when they altered the rear wing assembly for the 2001 season.
I don't remember the front wing being altered for the 2000 season.



Why though? Ross Brawn came out and admitted in the pre season that he has no idea why we have so much downforce on F1 cars, its just totally to the detriment of the racing, there is no need for it.
Also I don't agree that the car makers will abandon F1 simply because they only have 40% of the downforce to play with, it simply gives them another challenge to make a more slippery car, windtunnels if anything will be more essential to claw back what they have lost in terms of aero.

(Phew, I think thats the longest post ive ever written, im usually a 2 sentance man).

Lol You might have a point about the wingsize in 98..its a long time and im getting old. Iirc the wings where narrowed only not so much as the entire car. Seems we both have a point.

Im quite positive the frontwing was highered for 2000 and even more for 2001. One of the reasons was Ferrari running a suposedly flexible frontwing at the last 2 races of 99 and the FIA wanted to put a stop on that. Another reason was to improve overtaking, or more specific, making sure a car wasnt so reliable on frontwingdownforce so it would be able to stay close behind without downforce penalties. On another note, its pretty ironic that the beginning of 2000 saw lots of controversy about flexible rearwings,too, just as we have had the last few months. In those days a few of them broke off in testing at high speed. I remember Herbert having an accident on the straght of Barcelona.

As for Brawn saying he is suprised there is still so much downforce..i can hardly believe he was saying that in truth. Ferrari and him personally would jump right on top of Mosely if he would cut downforce so much. they get real edgy with the imo, litle changes they do now, let alone big ones.

Am looking forward to the changes in 2008!!

[Pingguest]

I'm not sure whether a cut of downforce will result in better racing. The FIA reduced downforce in 1995 to slow down the cars. It made close racing more difficult. I remember Jean Alesi complaining that it had become too difficult to drive close behind another and to pass, as a result of the 1995 technical regulations.

[pdman]

This is not my original thinking and I can't remember where I heard it suggested but:

What if we all circuits had a short parallel section of track that was say a few 10th slower than taking the normal route. A driver of a car being held up by a slower car would have the option to chance his luck and take the alternate section. Just think if 4 or 5 cars where being held up, how many of them would try to jump the car in front by chancing the relative slower route.

[Gerben24]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I'm not sure whether a cut of downforce will result in better racing.

I think it will. The disadvantage when driving behind another car using the current aero package is quite big. There will always be a disadvantage when driving behind another car. But if you reduce the downforce (by quite a margin) on a car, the disadvantage when chasing another car will be smaller as the griplevels are already low anyway.

It is said that the GP2 and A1GP cars have a specially designed aero package to enable other cars to follow through a corner on close range. I think it works in those classes, there is some good racing. It will be difficult to achieve this in F1, as the GP2 and A1GP cars are all the same.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by DeoValente

Lol You might have a point about the wingsize in 98..its a long time and im getting old. Iirc the wings where narrowed only not so much as the entire car. Seems we both have a point.

Im quite positive the frontwing was highered for 2000 and even more for 2001. One of the reasons was Ferrari running a suposedly flexible frontwing at the last 2 races of 99 and the FIA wanted to put a stop on that. Another reason was to improve overtaking...

Again, im not so sure on these matters, perhaps someone else could confirm these points?

Raising the front wing can hardly have been done to try and increase overtaking, if anything, the opposite needed to be done. The higher the front wing is, the more dirty air it gets from the the car in front.

Regarding the 1995 aero changes pointed out by Pingguest, yes I can see why Alesi said that. What they did was lower and redesign the rear wing which of course meant that the wing was no longer in clean air and wasn't able to work as effeciently.
They also introduced the wooden plank I believe in the middle of the 1994 season to stop the cars running too low, this also robbed cars of "clean" downforce, which combined with the 1995 rear wing re-design meant that the cars were much less aero effecient.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Gerben24

I think it will. The disadvantage when driving behind another car using the current aero package is quite big. There will always be a disadvantage when driving behind another car. But if you reduce the downforce (by quite a margin) on a car, the disadvantage when chasing another car will be smaller as the griplevels are already low anyway.

I'm not sure on that. Compared to 2006, the 1991 downforce levels are very low. But back in 1991 it was Nigel Mansell complaining that it was impossible to stay close behind Senna because of the aerodynamics.

It is said that the GP2 and A1GP cars have a specially designed aero package to enable other cars to follow through a corner on close range. I think it works in those classes, there is some good racing. It will be difficult to achieve this in F1, as the GP2 and A1GP cars are all the same.

Isn't the number of passings in A1GP that high, partly due the power-to-pass button?

And yeah, the GP2-cars are great. But these cars have more downforce than the old F3000-cars. Passes are common in GP2, but rare in F3000. I think the high number of passings in GP2 is mainly due the ground effects, which has also been admitted by Dallara designers.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by The Monster

Regarding the 1995 aero changes pointed out by Pingguest, yes I can see why Alesi said that. What they did was lower and redesign the rear wing which of course meant that the wing was no longer in clean air and wasn't able to work as effeciently.
They also introduced the wooden plank I believe in the middle of the 1994 season to stop the cars running too low, this also robbed cars of "clean" downforce, which combined with the 1995 rear wing re-design meant that the cars were much less aero effecient.

I partly agree. Mark Handford, the well-know American aerodynamicist, about how to deal with the lack over close racing and overtaking:

Personally I remain convinced that a "better fix" is a large tunnel/venture‑underwing with a very, very small front wing (more of a trim tab) and a modest/small rear wing. This will minimize the upwash for a given amount of downforce (because it spreads the downforce generating mechanism out) It also means that the centre-of pressure (and avoidance of understeer) is not reliant on a highly-loaded front wing (vulnerable to disturbance). Then use big slicks to re-introduce lots of mechanical grip.

So, my solution is:

1. Re-introduction of (a restricted form of) ground effects;
2. A lowering of the front wing and raise of the rear wing to the levels of the early 1990’s;
3. Introduction of flat front wing endplates;
4. Reduction of the front and rear wing to only one diagonal element;
5. A ban on any sort of bardge boards and winglets;
6. Reintroduction of 215 cm wide chassis.

[Gerben24]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I'm not sure on that. Compared to 2006, the 1991 downforce levels are very low. But back in 1991 it was Nigel Mansell complaining that it was impossible to stay close behind Senna because of the aerodynamics.

Very true, but back in those days the cars had these huge venturis which caused Mansells problems (or at least one of his problems ).

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Isn't the number of passings in A1GP that high, partly due the power-to-pass button?

.

True as well, but we have also seen situations where the extra horsepower (is it 30?) didn't make any difference whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

And yeah, the GP2-cars are great. But these cars have more downforce than the old F3000-cars. Passes are common in GP2, but rare in F3000. I think the high number of passings in GP2 is mainly due the ground effects, which has also been admitted by Dallara designers

The downforce on the GP2 cars has actually been reduced after Kovallainen complained during winter testing that the new cars had to much downforce, he could take corners full throtle and didn't they were fun to drive anymore.
Most of the downforce is created by the ground effects, which I think is great, but probably too dangerous for F1.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

1. Re-introduction of (a restricted form of) ground effects;
2. A lowering of the front wing and raise of the rear wing to the levels of the early 1990’s;
3. Introduction of flat front wing endplates;
4. Reduction of the front and rear wing to only one diagonal element;
5. A ban on any sort of bardge boards and winglets;
6. Reintroduction of 215 cm wide chassis.

Yep, I agree 100%

I would be a happy bunny once again if this came to fruition.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Gerben24

Very true, but back in those days the cars had these huge venturis which caused Mansells problems (or at least one of his problems ).

Incorrect. Venturis were banned in 1983. And venturis, as a part of ground effects, make it easier to drive close behind another. That’s the reason why CART didn’t ban venturis in 1983.

The downforce on the GP2 cars has actually been reduced after Kovallainen complained during winter testing that the new cars had to much downforce, he could take corners full throtle and didn't they were fun to drive anymore.
Most of the downforce is created by the ground effects, which I think is great, but probably too dangerous for F1.

I don’t understand why ground effects will be too dangerous for Formula 1. With proper regulations, it should be no problem.

[Oval_Junky]

Originally Posted by pdman
My new rules:
Each year the teams nominate the top 22 race drivers.
The teams have test drivers and these are the only drivers that can drive the cars between races.
At each race meeting the race drivers names are pulled out of the hat to see who drives which car.

Interesting idea i would like to see it but i dont think it'll ever happen. Not sure about any aero package though.

Originally Posted by Kirk
Removal of electronic driving aids, if it ever happens, should help somewhat. When you hear stories like Rubens at Ferrari who just trounces on the accelerator coming out of a corner and relies on TC to do the rest ... well that is just pathetic. And oh yeah, bring back slicks.

I agree totally.

Oh yeah and fully reversed grids on championship points. If your not too scared of a bit of racing that is!

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Oval_Junky

I agree totally.

Oh yeah and fully reversed grids on championship points. If your not too scared of a bit of racing that is!

Lol, how you achieve that at the first race of the season?