Australian Grand Prix

[Dino Scuderia]

Well, if you want to split hairs, yes, there has always been some built in conservation...but there's no denying that it is more consequential with todays rules.

When drivers are inclined to conserve more than push, it puts a damper on the racing.

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Dino Scuderia

Well, if you want to split hairs, yes, there has always been some built in conservation...but there's no denying that it is more consequential with todays rules.

When drivers are inclined to conserve more than push, it puts a damper on the racing.

I think it has more to do with the HYPE of the F1 circus in recent years and it's forgotten what racing cars is actually about. So removing all those decisions from the driver - it's NOT splitting hairs, it STILL goes on for every club racer today. You can put in a couple of BLISTERING laps on tyres and brakes and then be 1second a lap slower because of it. Best to be 1/4 second faster for the whole race.

Drivers STILL push at the right times. So hence why there is a huge change in positions at pit times. The driver THEN goes and pushes every last ounce from the machine knowing there's going to be new fuel ( and used to be new rubber ). Now they'll push just a little bit less knowing there is no new rubber. A wrong decision for me, they should have allowed tyre changes.

This years attempt to reduce the aero on the cars and reduce the size of the dirty-air behind a car doesn't look as if it has worked much difference as most cars seemed to have sprouted lots of extra "bits" which no bout negate the FIA's intention.

First race is a bit of a testing-ground anyway, lets see how things are by th e 3rd race

[Dino Scuderia]

Things will get worse after a few races.

Then we will have a race where some drivers are running "first race engines" and some will be running "second race engines". The latter will risk it, but the first will conserve and be slow and, as it is more likely for them to be ahead on the grid, they will slow down those who risk it. And then with teammates running different engines games will be played with the "conservationist" teammate slowing down others to let his risky mate have a better chance.

The second half of the grid (P12-P20) have very little chance to get into the points, anyway, and when they are on first race engines they will, naturally, conserve, thereby slowing the whole race. Imagin this happening on a track like Imola where overtaking is limited anyway - we'll be watching an organized parade in a strict order. And halfway thru the race, when it would be clear who was getting into the points, we will have more and more non-finishers decided by the team.
And even the riskiers will have to make sure they don't get a flat spot on tyres in the first stints (i.g. no daring moves, no hard breaking, no overtaking risks) 'cause they will vibrate as hell till race finish.

Hope I'm wrong.

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Dino Scuderia

Things will get worse after a few races.

Then we will have a race where some drivers are running "first race engines" and some will be running "second race engines". The latter will risk it, but the first will conserve and be slow and, as it is more likely for them to be ahead on the grid, they will slow down those who risk it. And then with teammates running different engines games will be played with the "conservationist" teammate slowing down others to let his risky mate have a better chance.

and this has been the way of racing for 70 years )
The great Bentley wins at Le Mans were down to team tactics. The Bentley "blower" were sent out at full chat forcing the Mercedes to run their blowers full time and they broke. So did the Bentley blowers though leaving the normal Bentleys to win.

It's all part of racing.
It happens today at all levels. A team mate if in position will baulk to slow a potential competitor away from their leading car. Standard practise if a team gets 1-2 the rear guy runs shotgun

The second half of the grid (P12-P20) have very little chance to get into the points, anyway, and when they are on first race engines they will, naturally, conserve, thereby slowing the whole race. Imagin this happening on a track like Imola where overtaking is limited anyway - we'll be watching an organized parade in a strict order.

I'm not so sure, I think you'll see drivers planning an overtake so LESS of sitting under a wing and more about planning from 3 corners back to be 10mph faster at a point. Just as the bike guys do.

And halfway thru the race, when it would be clear who was getting into the points, we will have more and more non-finishers decided by the team.

Fully expect the FIA to close that obvious loophole as Minardi were just taking the p!ss

And even the riskiers will have to make sure they don't get a flat spot on tyres in the first stints (i.g. no daring moves, no hard breaking, no overtaking risks) 'cause they will vibrate as hell till race finish.

Hope I'm wrong.

Yeah, the tyres one is stupid.
Expect a "loophole" to be found along the lines of "I kerbed it and I had a vibration and so I HAD to change the tyre for safety". Once off how can you prove or disprove it ? And with a LITTLE bit of ingenuity the guy removing the tyre will damage the sidewall - look out for Stanley blades built into the shoes

[Ethermaster]

I think they should really really really REALLY bring back the old qualifying were the driver had 12 laps to set the fastest lap he could. And as for the tyre rules thats silly it doesn't mean more overtaking at all, in fact it stops it you maybe in a lot faster car, but you can't pass because the tyre's will fall apart and damage your race later on.

[Quiggs]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

But F1 always WAS about pacing.

In the days before rev limiters in the ECUs a driver had to watch how close he got to the blowing the engine up.

Before modern materials a driver had to watch ho much they heated up the discs and drive accordingly - or end up driving the last 1/3 with nearly no brakes if they glazed !!

Fuel consumption, there was the middle period with the turbos when the DRIVER adjusted the mixture as they raced, richer to get the extra power to overtake and then lean it out to last to the end of the race.

Tyres had to be watched and nursed.

It's wrong to think today is any different than before. (IMHO)
Just as has happened before there is a team in ascendancy which has made all the rest look poor

Personally it's down to the tracks and the speed that is causing our problems in seeing "racing" as opposed to very fast driving. BUT would you want to watch cars 30mph slower than now ??

The technology has changed all of this though. They watched their brakes because they were made of lesser materials that would warp more easily. Tire tech has improved 100 fold. There's no need to pace a F1 car, if F1 is truly supposed to be about cutting edge technology.
I'd love to see the cars slowed 30mph or more if it meant there would be something interesting to watch. For the most part the race is over at turn one. Tell me the first 2 rows of a grid and I'll pick a winner. Slow the cars down and you'll see more competitive racing.

[crisis]

I used to think (perhaps naively) that F1 represented the pinnacle of automotive developement. We are constantly told how the technology filters down. Now it is so contrived to address so many different agendas it no longer offers the best to build the best. I like it but I would like it more if we could see two consecutive seasons go by with the same rules.

[RacingManiac]

Originally Posted by crisis

I used to think (perhaps naively) that F1 represented the pinnacle of automotive developement. We are constantly told how the technology filters down. Now it is so contrived to address so many different agendas it no longer offers the best to build the best. I like it but I would like it more if we could see two consecutive seasons go by with the same rules.

I think that is a big problem with F1, and perhaps all of motorsports, that the technology no longer filters down. F1 has warped the perception of automobile so much in search of aerodynamic development(that will never be practical for road car), that they are sacrificing everything for it. While on the other spectrum like NASCAR, they are so consumed with the idea of a easily controlled and monitor formula that they practically "stopped time" and chose to stay with now quite frankly, ancient way of building car that it is no longer applicable to road car.

[Quiggs]

Originally Posted by RacingManiac

I think that is a big problem with F1, and perhaps all of motorsports, that the technology no longer filters down. F1 has warped the perception of automobile so much in search of aerodynamic development(that will never be practical for road car).

When have F1 cars ever looked even remotely something like a production car?

on the other spectrum like NASCAR, they are so consumed with the idea of a easily controlled and monitor formula

Yes, they have a very tight reign on the way cars are build, and what can and can't be used. It's an attempt to keep costs relatively low as well as maintain a level and competitive field of play.

ancient way of building car

Yea, cause tube frame chassis are sooooooooo outdated... If you're referring to small block pushrod V8's, TVR used pushrods into the early 90's. Top NASCAR teams make 825+hp and 750 lb-ft of torque, out of 358 cubic inches.

[crisis]

Originally Posted by RacingManiac

I think that is a big problem with F1, and perhaps all of motorsports, that the technology no longer filters down. F1 has warped the perception of automobile so much in search of aerodynamic development(that will never be practical for road car), that they are sacrificing everything for it. While on the other spectrum like NASCAR, they are so consumed with the idea of a easily controlled and monitor formula that they practically "stopped time" and chose to stay with now quite frankly, ancient way of building car that it is no longer applicable to road car.

I think economic reality sets in. We are now in an era where almost anything is possible if youve got the bucks to pay for it. Technologically there ae few barriers but there are a finite number of people/companies who can afford it. So it means who ever has, or is willing to spend the most will win out if things are not controlled. Companies like Toyota are there to raise public perception of their cars. If they can race and beat Ferrari you can bet they will use that in their advertising no matter how longer bow it is. But the end has to financially justify the means. So to accomodate them and others in order to make the competition interesting and viable certain restrictions are made which in turn comprimises the ultimate scope of developement.

[RacingManiac]

Originally Posted by Quiggs

When have F1 cars ever looked even remotely something like a production car?


Yes, they have a very tight reign on the way cars are build, and what can and can't be used. It's an attempt to keep costs relatively low as well as maintain a level and competitive field of play.


Yea, cause tube frame chassis are sooooooooo outdated... If you're referring to small block pushrod V8's, TVR used pushrods into the early 90's. Top NASCAR teams make 825+hp and 750 lb-ft of torque, out of 358 cubic inches.

No you are missing the point, back in F1's early days, racing were run by small teams who build race cars. The cooper, McLaren, Lotus of the world. But now they are backed by manufacturers, and they seek return from their investment. Porsche is a good example. Their racing technology has always been able to filter down from their racing endeaver. The AWD on the 959, the Turbocharger, watercooled engines, and to now something like the Carrera GT. I think manufacturer would be a lot more happy to spend money in big time motorsport like F1 if they can get some practical value out of it instead of sheer bragging rights.

When I think "pushing the technological envelope" became irrelavent like what F1 is now, then I think it really serves no point to complain about F1 being dumbed down or something. Because there are no real comparison to them anyway. I think it is no wonder why so many other big manufacturer shy away from going into the sport. Look at VAG and their Le Mans program. They made Audi into a winning marque and at the same time matured their FSI direct fuel injection technology on the track with tangible performance benefit and now their new line of road car are going to be benefited from it. Much like how they made Quattro into a household name for AWD technology.

It is another story like what NASCAR is doing. There is nothing wrong with how they are doing to govern the competition. Pushrod, tube frame and whatnot are not the problem. There were no real development in NASCAR innthe past 20 years. They have nothing relate to the Taurus, the Charger or the Monte Carlo that we see, and no longer Stock Car. It just seem backward, that the Joe Doe's econobox that he drives has more electronic on his center console than the Jeff Gordan's "state of the art" 24 Chevy Monte Carlo. I think they can move the technology more reflect to what the real world is doing, instead of trying to curb the real world from going into NASCAR...it just seems silly, that Toyota would have to make a carb-fed pushrod v8 just for a "stock car" series, when Toyota have never made anything remotely close to that in their lineup....

[henk4]

Very good post, quoting the example of Porsche here is somewhat ironic as their last efforts to enter into F1 in the early nineties were nothing short of a disaster.
And yet the big German manufacturers aupply engines and not the chassis so the technology push comes mainly from that front. Or is it behind the screens that Mercedes and BMW really have something to say about chassis developments, brakes and suspensions as well?

Nice reference to NASCAR. I also prefer to visit historic races. That might explain why NASCAR is so attractive for the US racing community

[crisis]

Originally Posted by henk4

Nice reference to NASCAR. I also prefer to visit historic races. That might explain why NASCAR is so attractive for the US racing community

Whats that zinging sound?

[henk4]

Originally Posted by crisis

Whats that zinging sound?

The OHV figthing with some pushrods on the brink of bending

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Quiggs

The technology has changed all of this though. They watched their brakes because they were made of lesser materials that would warp more easily. Tire tech has improved 100 fold.

THAT was the point I was making, that the "golden days" of F1 had MORE "pacing" by drivers than today !! It was called driver skill and judgment and the main reason Prost was a winner - not the fastest on the track bu the smartest

There's no need to pace a F1 car, if F1 is truly supposed to be about cutting edge technology.

IF you remove ALL aspects of driver judgement then it's "Scalextric racing" and woudl be even worse than we have now. No we need to bring back MORE things that cause the driver to "pace". So less braking ability, less grip in turns, less aero turbulence - so then the driver has to judge brakign distances and variability and the same with cornering so fast in slow out is not too heavily penalised over slow in fast out.

I'd love to see the cars slowed 30mph or more if it meant there would be something interesting to watch. For the most part the race is over at turn one. Tell me the first 2 rows of a grid and I'll pick a winner. Slow the cars down and you'll see more competitive racing.

If the cars jsut go slower for limiter reasons then it woud lbe boring. This is the huge dilemma the FIA has. HOW to make the resultant speeds and lap times alower and safer AND maek it that the cars are more able to overtake each other. THAT means making some aspect of the car NOT be ideal. In a race car anything elss than ideal needs the driver to judge how MUCH of it to use at any one time. Hopefully we'll see the results in a few races.Australi wasnt' the best to judge things on given the debalce of that qualifying.