V10

I agree. It's a shame FIA ****canned the idea of V12's in late 90s when Ferrari and Toyota were working on 1.

 

Are you sure about that, because I read differently.

Liberty has no problem selling GPs to new promoters (Thailand, etc ...) , and different TV channels because the F1 audience is increasing, apparently. The new $1Billion sponsorship from Louis Vuitton (LMVH) seems proof of that, also the team are reported to receive more sponsorship than ever, even the backmarkers.
Let's face it, F1 is the place to be for announcers with its worldwide exposure, and the audience has changed too.
Going to a GP is not only for the purists or the racing fans anymore, but the place to be for off-track entertainement, regalia sales and taking selfies.
It's in the bucket list of many young people, like the Grand Canyon, or The Taj Mahal, and many don't know the difference between and hybrid or an N/A car, nor know who Jim Clark or James Hunt were.

 

we are not in 2026 yet. And yes combined with the new engines, the 2026 regulations by themselves I think those will show a HUGE downturn in viewership.

-The 2026 engine will act like generators, so drivers will have to lift off very early so the batteries will be charged quicker. On top of that the ICE will be running at high rpm to charge more mid corner
-the active aero is not driver controlled, it'll be computers...so it'll make the cars very slippery so even harder to overtake

Selling GP's to promotors (these days essentially governments with a never ending supply of tax payer cash) is not the metric I'd use for success. F1TV is now silent on how many viewers they have, as are all the self owned streaming platforms.

The people you name that they also now cater to are short of attention span. If they get bored next year F1 is in deep, deep trouble...alienating both of their viewergroups is a gamble I really, really wouldn't risk taking. Nothing says as well that these "new" fans would hate the more old school engines, btw...

 

Hear, hear!

 

I dont think it would have mattered. The V10's were far better for packaging than the V12s and the power wasn't much different, even when the V12s had 3.5L.

 

ah I agree on that, just would've been nice

 

It would be nice to have racing just be about racing. I'd gladly trade manufacturers in F1 for multiple independent engine suppliers like Illmor and Cosworth, etc. If the car makers want to join fine... if not... fine too. They should also introduce alternative engine options. Let's have a V10 with sustainable fuels to make the libs happy, let's also bring in a high end 2 cycle like Pat Symonds had talked about. It's my understanding they're making high end 2 cycle motors in the 1,000hp range.

The surge in F1 popularity is obviously tied to Drive to Survive. But I'll argue that most of those new viewers are not real fans. They're short-lived interest individuals who just found a new shiny object to let others know they're "cool." While some may stick around and become real fans, its just going to balance out with a similar number of historic fans leaving due to the ridiculousness of what F1 has become. It's a spectacle alright... but for all the wrong reasons.

 

I don't understand why F1 has to impose a type of engine design that everyone has to accept.
To me, that's heresy; Atmo, turbo, hybrid, V6, V8, V10 and V12 can co-habit like they used to do.
The FIA boffins have just to determine an equivalancy formula to all types of engines. WEC and IMSA can do it, why the FIA can't
3 championships were won by a 4-cylnder; who complained? BRM brought V16 and H16 engines !! Why not ?

 

I couldn't agree more.
Judging from some talks I had, I was astonished by the ignorance of some new F1 fans regarding its history .
Some seem to think it started with Netflix and have no knowledge of prior to that.
"Clark? Never head of him". "Who was that bloke Jordan they talk about a lot?" I heard today from distant acquaintances.

 

The 600Kg cars needed DRS not.

It is the friggen weight that has to come down (aerodynamic downforce may or may not need to come down.)

 

One would think that counting the KCal of a fuel could be used to equalize the field.

The in the first Turbo era, Honda made a fuel that would knock at the right octane on the test engine but allows for 5%-ish more compression and more boost at the same time without detonation. The fuel only cost around $100/gallon.....

I, personally, like the concept of "build whatever engine you like" and "switch engines/transmissions any time you like" after all this IS F1 not F17.

But it can also be said that the V10 produced the best noise across the entire field compared to the 3.5L formula.

 

I dont know. I remember people complaining relentlessly about the lack of passing in F1 in the 2000s. We always saw passing done through pitstops and strategy, rarely did we see it on track. When they went to DRS in 2012 there was a massive increase in on track passing.

Regardless of weight or size or power or any formula in the last 30 years, there is 1 racing line. If the cars are separated by tenths, then it's exceptionally difficult to pass within that 1 racing line especially if a car can't follow. They tried the adjustable front wings in 2009 which didn't seem to do anything. Any sort of ERS gets used the exact same way by every driver and is pretty much negated.

To me a DRS is a logical solution that does help, even if it's artificial. I also like Indy Car's push to pass that limits the amount they can use that overboost, so managing that during a race is it's own challenge.

With the complexity of aero dynamics in F1 these days, they need help to pass. If you want cars with significantly less aero, watch Indy Car or Nascar. You will hear them complaining about following as well. If you want a spec series, watch indy or nascar. If you want some sort of BoP, then watch WEC/IMSA.

The mid 2000s F1 cars with V10s and slicks are my dream, but I do think some form of DRS or push to pass would still be required to get the on track passing we want.

 

I dunno, I think there was a decent amount of passing in the 2000's era cars

 

With all the aero the FIA has allowed over the years, I think DRS is a necessary evil to see some passings during a race.

It would be interresting to have a race without DRS, to measure the difference.

 

Personally, I would prefer one "real" pass per race than 100 with DRS.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rZMdT-FNCc1T688xWIrZi4FWETbQdEM7bh8ZZQcDlc8/edit?gid=0#gid=0

Overtakes were horrendous in the 2000s. Sure there are a handful of great passes over the course of a decade, but that doesn't tell the real picture. The data proves how effective DRS has been.

 

I don’t find much entertainment in DRS slingshot passes down a straight, but to each their own

 

Exactly. Passing is still horrendous, just in a different way.

It's not an easy problem to solve. DRS did not solve it for me.

 

Clarkson’s idea has some merit-pay drivers a living wage base salary, then $1m per overtake

 

Believe me, I know what you mean. If its a choice between DRS passing and little to no passing, I'll take DRS passing.

 

If the cars are separated by 10ths, the the time to pass must be in the 10ths of a second range.

At 180 MPH, 1/10 of a second is 26.4 feet. If cars were 16 feet long this would not be a problem, but they are 23 feet long it remains a problem.

Which is why the artificial DRS was invented--to give another 0.05 second and allow passing of the stupidly long cars.

 

The problem when cars are separated by tenths is the following car can't get close to pass. We've heard it time and time again that the car behind needs to be a lot faster (I've heard 2 seconds at certain tracks) to stay close and have a run. When you see the numbers it doesn't make sense. Car behind is going 25-30 kph faster on the straight yet still can't get close enough to attempt a pass. Yet that's how it is. Without DRS that would be a lot worse. The cars could be 10 feet long and it won't matter if the car following is too far behind when they hit the brakes.

 

Turbulence from the lead car and exceptionally short braking distances are the problems. The only answer is less aero, which would mitigate both issues. The challenge is it would have to be a lot less aero, which would make the speed less spectacular.

But it's not like passes were non-existant in the decade before DRS. Rare, yes. But they happened. And when they did, they were worth watching. Between DRS and paved runoff (and the incentives it creates to elbow your way through), I think it's rarer today to see a pass that wows me.

I also believe DRS has contributed to predictability in F1. If a fast car ends up at the back of the pack, it's inevitable that they'll carve their way through and end up roughly where they "belong" at the end of the race. With the odd exception, gone are the days when drivers in slow cars can pull out a good result with heroic defense. For the most part, they're sitting ducks.

If we must have DRS, I'd prefer to see each driver get a fixed allotment, say fifteen eight-second allocations that they can use at any time, for offense or defense. I'd limit them to one per lap. This would at least eliminate the asymmetry that benefits the trailing driver.

 

By Less aero I guess you mean less complicated aero. For good, natural racing you actually want everyone to have pretty high downforce as this allows for slip streaming, this is why Monza is so dull these days because they run with practically zero wing, which means the hole punched in the air is much smaller.

What we need is less loss of downforce when following closely, which, frankly speaking, is almost impossible to achieve without going to extreme ground effects. So we need the tyre to work better when overheating (or actually, to stop it from overheating as quick) so that cars can follow closer for longer. The tyre manufacturer can do their part but also reducing weight of the cars will do it's job, too.

You are correct, reducing aero will make braking distances longer but that can also be achieved by having less tyre. Pre 2017 we saw better racing.

 

Aero is the culprit in two ways:

1. The lead car generates turbulence. All cars generate turbulence, but ground effects and wings make it much worse (as do open wheels, for that matter). This robs the trailing car of downforce, making it difficult to get a exit - they can't follow the lead driver closely and exit at a lower speed because of the reduced grip. This is why it's so difficult to get a good run down a straight - even with the benefit of the slipstream - because they enter the straight at such a disadvantage.*
2. Short braking zones make it very difficult for a would-be passer to pull alongside the lead driver without missing the corner. You're correct that you can lengthen braking zones with less mechanical grip as well, but it wouldn't address problem 1.

Slipstreaming doesn't require massive aero. It's a big part of qualifying and racing in Formula Fords, for example, which have no wings or ground effect. It is amplified with the bigger hole punched by larger, high downforce cars, but this benefit is easily outweighed by the following distance problem.
___
* This is why all the modern Herman Tilke tracks have slow corners preceding long straights. Slow corners mean less turbulence and less dependence on downforce, so the following distance problem is mitigated. But it's still an issue.