It's the aero that gives the stopping abiliities, not the brakes. Tires and total grip is what allows these cars to stop at 4+G. Steel brakes wouldn't change a thing. The carbon brakes are there for weight savings, not stopping performance. It's fairly well known that to improve the show, the grip levels have to be reduced. It's also well known that doing that will likely kill the performance of the cars enough that it ceases to be "F1". So they've been spending years trying to figure out how to address these two conflicting requirements. It's a difficult problem.
Rose tinted spectacles here? I remember those days very, very well and there was as much B&M'ing going on then about no overtaking back then as well. OK, maybe we didn't get to read & comment about is much before the 'Net, but it has *always* been that way. As to Ayrton and overtaking, the same's been said of Michael - You see him in your mirrors, he's coming thru. We can all come up with isolated examples of banzai moves and wheel banging but F1 isn't taxicab racing - Never has been and hopefully never will be. Cheers, Ian
This may be blasphemy... but what about active aerodynamics? Perhaps there is a solution whereby movable aero parts could be devised and used so that a car behind another car actually has an aerodynamic advantage?
It's an interesting thought. The basic problem is the "dirty" air when you're trying to follow. Could the aero guys come up with a solution that overcomes that problem? I dunno, maybe allow 'em to crank on a bunch more downforce? I'd like to see 'em go back to *everything* being "active" (suspension, aero, even gear changing and driver aids) - We still won't have any overtaking, but man, they'd be fast! Cheers, Ian
...I always thought of it as a good gimmick, one small shot of NOS in, and then you´ll have the overpassing, and besides, is ECO friendly since is Oxygen enriched but anyhow...WE NEED REFUELING BACK!!!! I HONESTLY dont think the rule will survive two more GP...looking after the tires and gas is just ridiculous on such a load of fuel, and besides, the same amount of fuel is used to go the distance... Isnt it even WORST to transport that much fuel? If we do the same distance with less fuel load,(refueling) the consumption goes down cause there is almost no gas used to carry the load around?
whatever the answer....i hope it comes soon, because my god was that boring. i have been actively watching f1 since 1973 and i dont think i have ever been this disappointed by the first race. listen up bernie...it was BORING ! the way you make the racing exciting is to remove the....RULES. let the modern day colin chapman's, bruce maclarens, enzo's, etc have at it. be as creative as you like. remember, it was by unleashing that kind of creativity that we got aerodynamics, better tires, carbon fibre etc etc. stop controlling every single aspect or we will end up where we are now....formula ford on steroids
KERS........ Rather, "Generation 2" KERS. [I know I better don the flamesuit here, I know the cost, reliability problems, blah, blah, but I think they *almost* got there last year. Good for them they've decided not to use it unilaterally - The FIA says it's legal.] Cheers, Ian
Often MS has said races were boring to him in times past. I even remember him saying at a USGP race where is spun (while being so far ahead in 1st place) that he was bored and lost concentration. Nothing new for him to make a statement like that.
I was there at Indy in 2000 when he went off and had around a 30 sec lead. Such a lead that he just collected it up and still cruised to the win... Frank p.s. loved the atmosphere at the first USGP at Indy in 2000.
did anyone else find qualifying frustrating to watch without the realtime knockout scorecard? Hard to justify watching qualifying when you don't know which drivers are looking in, on the bubble, or how the lap times compare. Hopefully that was a one event omission.
As much as 6 sec. difference between Qual and race lap times. Conserve tyres, conserve engines. consreve money to give small teams a big chance! 2010 looks like a cross between Solar Challenge and Formula Prius
+1. The problem is the cars are too even, and this has been caused by nobbling the engineers through too many rules. All spec series have this problem ... and there are so many rules in F1 that it really is a spec series. If we allowed the engineers more freedom cars would have advantages and disadvantages and this creates passing opportunities and interest within a race. Refueling is not the solution, it is a poor form of bandaid. Pete
Agreed, actually IMO KERS was a step in the right direction , it was a kill 2 birds with 1 stone pleasing to the folks banging on about making F1 green, also giving a window of opportunity to make some passing, and defending moves. However as usual **** loads of cash was spent and wasted on it, then as some of the teams were getting to grips with it, the FIA and there fickle no thinking rules tossed it off.
You would think that today active aero would be put back on the table for consideration. I can understand 30-40 years ago when aerodynamics were a newer concept and movable parts were indeed dangerous. But I'd love to see what today's engineers would come up with.
Slight correction here Steve - KERS is actually still legal according to the FIA technical regs. The teams themselves have a "gentlemens agreements" not to use it...... But, yeah, I thought it showed "promise" (albeit very, very expensive promise!) as a PTP (or, push to defend) option. Cheers, Ian
+1 That and active suspension. Did anyone else notice how high the cars were at the end of the race? I presume having all that weight coupled with the need to protect the plank means we're gonna see that a lot this year..... And we all know that F1 cars like to be *low*..... Maybe the plank rule needs to be looked at? Cheers, Ian
IMHO, the way to make F1 exciting again is to let the cars have more horsepower than they can put down on the track, If this is allowed, then driver talent will be on display ... and so will lack of driver talent. The wolves can't differentiate themselves from the sheep in this current idiom. It's like Group C racing in the mid eighties. Oh yeah, I also agree with the poster who advocated a return to real tracks and not these glorified go cart tracks. We need terrain changes and difficult corners leading onto, and following, straights; what we don't need are 90 degree corners before and after long straights.
No rev limit. Eight engines for everyone, why not let the teams decide how far to push the envelope? I miss tons of DNFs, it added another variable....
Bigger motors with more cylinders and less grip = similar lap times. Problem solved. One only needs to look at the F1 cars of the early 1990s...
