Suggest ideas to make F1 more competetive... :D
- Thread starter Deepak
- Start date
F1 is in a similar state as MotoGP was when Doohan was dominating the series. They went through countless changes, which did little to dislodge Mick from his rightful position (although many riders gave him a good race occasionally). When Doohan left, the top slot changed a few times until Rossi settled down with Honda. And again, we had somebody else dominating the series.
Now that Rossi (and Burgess) has left for Yamaha, it'll be interesting to see how this year pans out. But make no mistake about it, Honda will remain the manufacturer champions this year - they are simply the best out there. They have the best attitude towards testing and development; the best towards spreading resources around; the best towards ironing out mistakes (although it took Doohan and Burgess to knock a lot of sense back into the engineers).
Ferrari are like Honda. They are simply the best team out there and they're fortunate to have two excellent drivers as well. Schuie may retire next year but the team will still be there. Sure, they could get rid of every possible electronic device on the cars, cut 3 inch treads into the tires or force each car to have 3 inch spoilers - they've changed rules left, right and centre already. While Dave's comments are worth noting, Ferrari are setting team quality standards that others must match.
Now that Rossi (and Burgess) has left for Yamaha, it'll be interesting to see how this year pans out. But make no mistake about it, Honda will remain the manufacturer champions this year - they are simply the best out there. They have the best attitude towards testing and development; the best towards spreading resources around; the best towards ironing out mistakes (although it took Doohan and Burgess to knock a lot of sense back into the engineers).
Ferrari are like Honda. They are simply the best team out there and they're fortunate to have two excellent drivers as well. Schuie may retire next year but the team will still be there. Sure, they could get rid of every possible electronic device on the cars, cut 3 inch treads into the tires or force each car to have 3 inch spoilers - they've changed rules left, right and centre already. While Dave's comments are worth noting, Ferrari are setting team quality standards that others must match.
I hate these entire "penalised-for-winning" rules (as in BTCC). It makes a mockery out of the whole notion of racing. It's like being sneered at for simply being better than everyone else - "Huh, so you won that race. Well just try it again with a heavier car, smart ass".Mendel said:
Neeyik said:
mick was something else all right... what a rider...
and to think he nearly lost a leg in an accident a few years before he went to 500cc... amazing
@ the moment ferrari has the best tech/cars and drivers... bridgestone has stepped out of michelins shadow as well... they just have the most complete package... however I think there will be more parity as the season progresses..
bout somoene's comment about kimi not getting a good car... keep in mind the last several years schumi's been dominating while ruebens has been fudging round with teh car... its not the cars fault by itself... kimi has to bear some responsibility for the performance as well... just like last year when he threw away the initiative...
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Snyder said:
The problem is that you don't get the slipstream affect until you are very close to the car in front. To get to that point you have to go through some turbulent air further behind the lead car. Modern cars are so aerodynamically advanced (they are basically an upside down wing that forces them onto the track), that this turbulent air greatly lessens the downforce from the aerodynamics, and thus lessens grip and stability.
With all the changes over the years that have seen the FIA lessen grip and power in vain attempts to slow the cars down, aerodynamics are the major thing left holding a fast car to the track. As soon as the aerodynamics are disturbed, the car loses speed as it loses grip. It so happens that the most likely place for that to happen on the track is in the disturbed air behind the slipstream of the car in front. The harder overtaking (especially on straights as opposed to corners) is an inevitable consequence of the measures to lessen grip in efforts to slow the cars down.
I still think that the best way to get around this is to design better tracks with more overtaking opportunities as we've seen in Barhein and Malaysia. Long straights where you can force your car through the turbulence to the slipstream, and wide corners where two cars can outbrake each other without crashing.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Sxotty said:
That would be insane. Can you imagine a car series that allows:
Full slicks (wider than today), automatic gearbox (including launch control), traction control, active suspension, six litre + engines, turbo chargers, ground effects skirts, active adjustment via two way telemetry, bigger and more aerodynamic wings, large (full race) fuel tanks, plus anything else they can think up.
You'd have to design new tracks that could handle cars driving around at 300 mph.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
you have to keep in mind if you get close enough to the car in front you are not getting 'clean' air through your intakes...
keep that in mind along with a loss of downforce and you can see why it is a tough job for people to overtake nowadays when cars are reasonably evenly matched...
bernie's gotta get his thinking cap on and make a coupla sweeping changes that allow for more competition w/o penalising succesful teams...
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
Through the years F1 Cars have become extrodinarily fast. In Malaysia the cars were 3 seconds faster than last year(about 2 secs faster ever). Changes from Turbo's(1.5 litre Engines) to 3.5l down to 3l Now. and yet the lap records tumble. Where before it was down to tire grip(slicks) and a reasonable design and having an awesome driver to nowadays with super grip tires(even if they have grooves) to awesome aerodynamics to awesome drivers things have changed. An yes where F1 Cars have been to the bleeding edge of technology(active suspension to launch control etc.) as it should be, nowadays they are trying to cut back on this technology to try make the cars go slower.
What can and should be done to these cars with out making it more dangerous for the drivers? The reason why alot of the races became procession races was because of the way the FIA tried to slow down the cars which in turn have made the cars very unstable(to overtake). And at 320km/h an unstable car can be very dangerous(not only for the drivers, but for the public as well). Look at Brasil last year and Spa the previous year. Huge accidents(although I must state that Brasil and Spa accidents were because of rain more than anything else). Thank the man upstairs that no one has yet lost their lives(not counting the marshall at Australia 2-3 yrs ago).
So now they looking at reducing the F1 engines capacity to 2.5l(F3000 cars use 2.5l engines), maybe adding rev limiters, to adding extra weight to the winner all of which I think is stupid. Why should the winning team be penalised? If the winning prepares better than the other then they should win. It's up to the others to prepare better etc.
Look at BAR. Last year, engines were blowing, Jenson got only 17 points and Jacques got 6. This year after only 3 races Jenson is third in the driver standings with 15 and Sato has 4. This team has turned around. And good for them I say.
McLaren though have lost the plot completely. Even after they released this years challenger in October of last year. So they've had 5 months to sort out their car for the 2004 season yet don't even feature in the races. It's definitely not Ferrari or BAR's fault. So don't penalise them.
McLaren to scrap MP4-19 Challenger?
US
What can and should be done to these cars with out making it more dangerous for the drivers? The reason why alot of the races became procession races was because of the way the FIA tried to slow down the cars which in turn have made the cars very unstable(to overtake). And at 320km/h an unstable car can be very dangerous(not only for the drivers, but for the public as well). Look at Brasil last year and Spa the previous year. Huge accidents(although I must state that Brasil and Spa accidents were because of rain more than anything else). Thank the man upstairs that no one has yet lost their lives(not counting the marshall at Australia 2-3 yrs ago).
So now they looking at reducing the F1 engines capacity to 2.5l(F3000 cars use 2.5l engines), maybe adding rev limiters, to adding extra weight to the winner all of which I think is stupid. Why should the winning team be penalised? If the winning prepares better than the other then they should win. It's up to the others to prepare better etc.
Look at BAR. Last year, engines were blowing, Jenson got only 17 points and Jacques got 6. This year after only 3 races Jenson is third in the driver standings with 15 and Sato has 4. This team has turned around. And good for them I say.
McLaren though have lost the plot completely. Even after they released this years challenger in October of last year. So they've had 5 months to sort out their car for the 2004 season yet don't even feature in the races. It's definitely not Ferrari or BAR's fault. So don't penalise them.
McLaren to scrap MP4-19 Challenger?
US
Their dominance is nothing compared to williams '91-'93. Ferrari aren't 1.5s ahead of the field. they are 0.5s max. The difference is that they make the best of it. You can't penalize that.
Last year they were slower, with an unstable car and they won the championship. Now that was racecraft.
Last year they were slower, with an unstable car and they won the championship. Now that was racecraft.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Sxotty said:
You can't have an "anything goes" series that doesn't make the cars so fast you couldn't race them on current tracks. The reason why FIA have been banning all these new technologies over the years is because they make the cars go faster. Their efforts to slow the cars down is so that they *can* continue to race on current tracks.
As it is now on the fast tracks, cars can reach 180 mph. In a no holds barred series, you could see that easily get to 250 mph plus, making a lot of tracks simply unegotiable. Once you allow insane tech to get you to that kind of speed, you need new tracks to run it on.
V3 said:
hell no...
there is no way I am gonna watch f1 if a NASCAR-isation occurs... if i want people to do left turns all day I can bloody well sit @ an intersection of a busy street and do that or watch nascar and strap my arms down to prevent myself from plucking my eyes out...
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
V3 said:
Nahh, I think ovals are boring. Plus at that kind of speed, you'd have a hard job making sure the cars don't fly off the bankings. If you had an multi-car accident (which seems to be a lot more often on ovals than on F1 tracks), you'd probably kill and maim dozens of drivers at that speed.
In fact one of the reason that F1 have been trying to slow the cars down over the years is because of accident fears. The problem is that if you keep making the cars faster and stronger (a) the drivers get broken necks and other injuries due to the great gee-forces involved in a 300 mph accident even if the car protects them, and (b) the stronger you make the cars, the more able they are to spear through fences, spectators, other cars, etc. at those kinds of speeds.
Also at that speed if you want the truth the drivers will need pressure suits like jet pilots wear. Otherwise they will pass out on the turns. Seriously that is true btw it happened at texas world speedway by dallas texas. They tried racing faster cars on a track b/c the angle of the banked curve allowed it and it ended up making several drivers pass out in the time trials so they cancelled the race.
BTW BZB I still don't understand your idea. If they cannot negotiate the track b/c their car is to fast they will loose the race, thus instead of silly rules you just make the track and they make a machine that will negotiate that track as fast as possible.
My whole supposition is it would place a premium on ingenuitive ideas to get thru the current track faster. Maybe you think that the rules don't hold them back and they are already maxxed out for their traks then I could understand your idea, otherwise I am kind of confused about why it is a problem barring safety concerns for horrid wrecks.
BTW BZB I still don't understand your idea. If they cannot negotiate the track b/c their car is to fast they will loose the race, thus instead of silly rules you just make the track and they make a machine that will negotiate that track as fast as possible.
My whole supposition is it would place a premium on ingenuitive ideas to get thru the current track faster. Maybe you think that the rules don't hold them back and they are already maxxed out for their traks then I could understand your idea, otherwise I am kind of confused about why it is a problem barring safety concerns for horrid wrecks.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Sxotty said:
That's why FIA have been slowing the cars down. You have a car that can do 300 on the striaights and then have to slow down at 15g to take the corners. Sometimes they would fly off. The safety barriers and tyre walls would not be adequate. The run off areas and gravel traps would not be big enough. No fence would be able to save the spectators from flying debris. No car would be able to withstand any kind of accident at that speed.
It's the same logic that means the world sports bodies have been doing things like making the javelin heavier over the years. Today's javelin throwers would chuck a javelin from 50 years ago straight into the crowd. To get around that you would have to build new stadiums. They don't want to build new stadiums.
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Not sure about current F1 rules but a couple of items comes to mind:
1) Remove the turbocharger penalty from 1.5 liters for max Displacement
2) Change the tire wear and force more pitstops
2) Lower the fuel cell capacity
3) Allow cars with lower bhp to have a wider car track width of 180 centimeters (wider wheelbase for better cornering)
4) Aero adjustments
1) Remove the turbocharger penalty from 1.5 liters for max Displacement
2) Change the tire wear and force more pitstops
2) Lower the fuel cell capacity
3) Allow cars with lower bhp to have a wider car track width of 180 centimeters (wider wheelbase for better cornering)
4) Aero adjustments
I read an article somewhere related to Ferrari domination of F1 and whether F1 has become boring now and once sentence caught my attention which basically meant that people has no problem Tiger Woods dominating golf or people don;t complain golf has become bore now (it is another matter it is borest sport IMO)...similarly why are people complaining about Ferrari now...they have raised the bar and it is now upto other teams to the hard work....sounds logical to me!