I suspect this thread will turn into another train wreck pretty quickly, but here we go. Link to the complete article at the bottom, edited here for brevity, my emphasis added; As always in F1, "there's more to it than initially meets the eye!"..... Let the howls commence! Cheers, Ian Lift and coast, explained - Pitpass.com
Thanks, Ian. Interesting article. Here's another for those interested, from BBC Sport...T Canadian Grand Prix: 'Lift and coast' - is fuel-saving killing F1? http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/33043557 T
The simple solution is to require ALL cars to start the race with the full 100 liters of fuel on board. No starting light, getting a lead and then coasting just enough to finish but still keep the competition behind. Just like aerodynamics, this fuel regulation favors the driver who qualifies on the front row and leads after the first turn. If you are the fastest qualifier you can reduce your fuel load by 5-10kg and use that advantage to gain an early lead, then use the weight advantage and aero advantage gained by running in clean air to keep from being passed. You see this in every race. Barring mishaps or bad pit stops, the guy who leads after the first turn wins. So, fill every car to the max at the start of the race. It may not have a big impact on overtaking, but it will take away an additional advantage that the likes of Mercedes enjoy, beyond the design and driver advantages they have.
"Thanks" back at ya Tom! A good counterpoint. The Pitpass article claims they'd be *slower*, over the whole race distance, if they weren't L&C'ing...... I cut it out from my "highlights" above, but maybe worth noting (for those who haven't read the whole thing) that they're still accelerating as hard as they can to get to top speed. And as anyone who knows anything about high performance driving knows, getting to speed on the straights is where you save time. In other words, they're not accelerating slowly, it's not an economy run, and apex speeds remain the same, it's just a different (*faster* over the race distance, say the engineers) approach. Further, "When a car is travelling at 300km/h there's an awful lot of drag force on the car - a deceleration of 0.9g, similar to an emergency stop in any normal road car." OK, these aren't, not should they be, "normal road cars", but I can see where the engineers are coming from. It also helps to save brakes too of course. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it either, but I'm not sure we'd notice if the radio messages weren't being constantly broadcast. Further, it does seem they're all guilty of, basically, underfueling the things - The much maligned 100kg limit or even flow rate is not what's causing the problem! They've just worked out it's quicker that way. It's a conundrum for sure. Cheers, Ian
Being pedantic, it's a 100kg, not a 100 liters, but beyond that I hear you - You make some good points! However, starting at the front has always been a great advantage, as it should be. Unless we go down the silly "reverse grid" road or apply similar nonsense to "spice it up". Further, if we're all starting on full tanks, what actually changes other than the race being slower yet? Merc will remain the class of the field...... An interesting debate either way! Cheers, Ian
Another twist on the old racing adage, "Once you're in the lead, run the race at the slowest possible speed that permits you to remain there".
Do we want f1 to be a race or a mpg and tire saving contest. Impo f1 was great with refueling and pre 2003 you could start on any fuel load you liked. 2006 french gp when shumi pitted 4 times was epic I want drivers to push every lap
Novel idea: How about F1 adds a variable into the mix and resurrects re-fueling? Let the teams do as they wish. Run light. Run heavy. Your choice. You want to trade-off for a fuel stop? That's fine with me. But, THIS almost isn't racing any longer. It's eking through the finish with just enough fuel to complete the cool-down lap before it runs dry. It's an exercise in fuel consumption calculations. The winners are entirely determined by the engineers who design the engine (sorry, "Power Units") and aero packages. Having driven aero-grip cars, it may indeed be the right strategy to ease off the throttle earlier, settle the car and then go through the corner faster. That's purely for reasons of grip, though. Not fuel efficiency. It may happen to be more efficient, but that's a secondary benefit. It shouldn't be the driving factor determining racecraft and strategy. Also, this style of driving is another reason why passing becomes more difficult, IMO. CW
who cares how much skill it takes. it's boring as hell for the fans and only exists as a consequence of these stupid regulations. you want real racing? see: MS Hungary 1998
Micheal this is Ross the boss we need you to push haha . To bad Michael never gets mad fred and hambone would have a epic melt down .
IIRC, it was something like; Ross; "Michael, we need a second a lap for the next 15 laps please." [Ross was always polite!] Michael; "Roger that." And, he delivered just over 15 seconds in 14 laps..... Can you imagine the *howls* here if the Merc boys did the same.... Now *that's* domination! Cheers, Ian
Was an amazing strategy call and took an incredible driver to pull it off. I wouldnt' really call it domination though, MS was just on another planet that race. The McLaren was the faster car all year by a significant margin
L&C is boring for the fans? If they didn't broadcast the radio messages, how many fans would even notice they're coasting before braking?
It's a good article - thanks. I think you posted it before no? The science of it makes sense, and I agree it is an additional challenge, but it just seems to go against the spirit of racing doesn't it? I mean in formula cars you are actually taught to never coast - you should always be on the gas or throttle for a variety of reasons. Seems like the drivers don't care for it either. They use to short shift more didn't they? Why the switch to lift and coast? Do they use lift and coast in any other major racing series? I've never heard it mentioned except in F1.
Nope... Was only published yesterday. The BBC "counterpoint" is a week old, but I don't believe that's been posted here either. Agreed. I recall Hammond driving Fred's V10 Renault WDC car a few years back (lucky bugger!) and the data guy "admonishing" him for the 1 or 2 10th delay between coming off the gas & getting on the anchors. More efficient - You always want to get to "top speed" as quickly as you can - Short shifting will save juice, but also increase the time taken to reach Vmax. I could be wrong, but given the myriad rules in WEC style racing I suspect it's done a lot there too - Just we don't get to hear about it. Cheers, Ian
+1 I suspect none if the truth be told. But, it appears to have become the "whine du jour"..... As noted in the article, we're talking tiny amounts per lap, and they don't do it at all if someone's up their chuff - This is, IMO, the reason Fred was pissed at them suggesting he needed to do it in Canada - He wanted to race, fuel be damned - Worry about that later. In fact, playing devils advocate, it could be argued it's analogous to going back to the much "loved" steel brakes with their increased braking distances. Cheers, Ian
You're missing the point. See below: It's part of this horrendous, cruise around, don't push, manage this, manage that, drive to a delta lap time that modern F1 has become. If you can't see why that is boring for fans then I don't know what to tell you.
I agree - we wouldn't notice lift and coast without the radio because...the engines are too quiet. : ))))) Add that as a side to the whine du jour ; )
Yes! That was when racing was exciting and there was space for heroics like that. TBH, I often go onto YouTube and revisit some of those old 4:30a broadcasts at a more reasonable time. I really liked the MS/Ferrari years when he was still battling to become the champ (except for the year he broke his leg was that '99?)
Drivers are not very happy either, according to MW... Webber says Formula One drivers are upset at state of F1 - Yahoo Sports
Sure. In one form or fashion its used in most racing, anytime saving fuel is deemed to be an advantage. Indycars, stock cars, Grand Am, and WEC all do this in one way or another. The fact that GP 2 cars could make F1 grids is the biggest problem I see. The f1 cars are just too slow.
1997, 1998 and 2000 are some of the best seasons in F1 history. I'll never forget what it was like when MS finally won it at Suzuka '00. Was a great feeling as a fan
F1 is like a sprint race. Not a friggin enduro. We don't need lift and coast BS. We need full intensity, start till finish.
