Something that I feel doesn't get mentioned enough in the modern era is how reliable these cars are, compared to even just a couple of decades ago, combined with the ballooning number of races per season. These two variables have had a major effect on the statistics.
100% true. It actually makes the 1988 McLaren MP4/4 season that much more impressive. Nigel Mansell finished just 2 races that year (both 2nd place finishes). But reliability issues can be looked at two ways. Back in the day the driver and teams had to manage the car just to finish, so any driver had potential of a good result as long as they finished the race while others did not. Look at Panis in Monaco 1996. Now days you need to beat other drivers and cars just to score points.
Back in the days, drivers had to change gears themselves !! They didn't have the luxury of paddle-shift gearchange and electronic rev limiter to avoid "buzzing" the engine on downshifts. Drivers were busy using the 3 pedals, and spent most of the race driving with one hand, the other being constantly solicited for gear changes. Just one false move during the race, a bad syncronisation and it was curtain !! The engine (often bent valves), the clutch or the gearbox were damaged often reducing performance and leading to retirement. Driving fast and nursing the car was a real skill then: there was no safeguard ! Today's drivers have it easy, they can concentrate on going fast, without worrying about their car. Their only worry is tyre degredation. I think the late Niki Lauda said it once when comparing with the new generation of drivers "At least, I did all my gearchanges myself !!" Now driving a F1 is a piece of cake !! Even the worst drivers (Mazepin, Latifi) don't over-rev engines or burn clutches.
The skill level has moved on from being quick and not breaking the car to getting the last tenth out of a car whilst the rest around you are doing the same thing.
You just have to see the 126C2 at the galleria Ferrari in Maranello to understand drivers were just heroes during decades..
Fully agreed. Problem is, these days drivers multitask too much, and 'manage' the car the entire 'race'. There's just too much thinking i think is involved in energy harvest, strategizing the push to pass button, tyres. Which means, they probably only 'race' for first 5 laps, and then mostly it's just managing the car. Even the pitlane strategies have changed. Everything is relied so much on data, that there's hardly a gamble anymore during slight rainfall or safety car situations, because everything has been calculated by computers pre race.
Solution: Lighter cars Simpler engines Less ''top side'' aero Restrict total 3d surface area for floor Refueling (forget the BS that it's ''unsafe''...works perfectly fine in Indycar so how come not in F1?). Other solution is 120 kg of fuel and you know...fill it up to the top. Only things monitored by team are distances to other drivers, essential temperatures.
FIA should restrict data teams to just those present at trackside. Remote data centres on Jupiter is not a sport, it's a farce.
While I do agree with you, I've been saying it for 20 years that cutting aero isn't a magic fix for more passing. In the late 90s, early 2000s, people were complaining about passing all the time. The cars had a lot of top side downforce relative to the floor, plus grooved narrow tires. Now the cars have a ton of underbody downforce, enormous mechanical grip from the ultra wide slicks which create a buttload of drag. Even with DRS and different energy deployments, it's still extremely difficult to pass. On paper, F1/FIA have done exactly what people have been begging for. When drivers are so close in lap times, the driving line is so narrow, and with cars that are relatively easy to drive, it just doesn't promote passing. Making it worse, drivers being in management mode for 90% of the race is horrible. Can't use max power because they'll run out of fuel. Can't push the tires because they'll overheat. Can't have a killer outlap after a pitstop because the tires won't last the stint. Can't push the engine or gearbox because they won't last 1/4 of the season. I don't think Pirelli have the ability to make a tire we need for great racing. I'm all for soft tires that wear out, but they need a much larger operating window. Remember 2004 when they would push pretty much flat out for 15-20 laps. If there was a battle, the drivers could fight each other without overheating their tires. I can't agree with you enough about refueling. We need more unpredictability. Passing in the pits will happen and I am all for it. If it means one team doesn't dominate for 8 years, or one driver doesn't win 15+ races a year.
Actually to be honest ''more easy overtaking'' wasn't high on my list of things that need doing...Close following and the possibility of overtaking is a far higher priority if you ask me. And yes, I entirely agree with your gearbox/engine notion...cheaper, simpler engines need to happen so that they can be chuck away items after a weekend. I've said it a million times before but the V8 engine we had, the math on that was simple...250K for the engine, for a full season 1 per weekend today that would be 6 million per car per season. That doesn't even cover the cost of a single engine today... Imagine the above formula with lower weight cars and less aero, and engines that only have to last the weekend + refueling? i.e. drivers can push the entire race. Drivers pushing + rivals following closer = more pressure = more mistakes/watching brilliance unfold. In what way is that not better than what is now an endurance race that changes location every 300km.
We basically need to go back to basics. Lighter, agile cars, basic manual gearbox, etc. Technology has brought us all here today. And not in a good way
That's what I meant too. Following closer would allow for the possibility of more passing. I think F1 should stop being so stuck up and start looking at what Indy Car. It's far better racing. I do not want to see a spec series, but they can copy the things that work.
F1 could be green by simply stating facts. The carbon footprint by moving the F1 circus 1 time over sea's is worse than probably having all 20 cars racing for a season. Imagine this headline: "we have reduced the energy consumed in transportation by 36%. This energy saved would be equal to all the F1 cars consuming 500 gallons and 4 sets of tires a race for a single season." Obviously that's a hogwash statement, but you get the idea. Then they wouldn't need to fake a green agenda, and go back to entertaining races that burn more fuel and use more tires. Here is a fact though: All 20 F1 cars on the grid will consume a maximum of 2600L of fuel in a race. 1 semi truck consumes approx 406L of fuel to go from Zandvoort to Monza. If each team used 6 trucks, that would be 48795L of fuel. I read one article that said it takes 300 trucks to move the F1 show. If that were true, they would consume over 120,000L of fuel. That is 1 trip, one way. They still have to pack up and move onto the next race, or get it back to the factory.
And Formula E is even worse ! 3 weeks of rigging each "circuit" with dozens of diesel HGV's, fork lift trucks, generators, etc etc.
Yet, at the same time technology is at the core of F1. But now technology totally dominates F1. It's an engineering contest more than a drivers competition, IMO.
