You miss the point entirely. If wings were banned, then the speeds WILL come down. Lower corner exit speed and without aero traction will limit acceleration and will lower straightaway speeds. The cars won't be going that fast and won't go into orbit. Wings came about after the three liter formula was introduced because the cars had much more power and couldn't put it down. While the powers that be want to slow the cars down, they still need to be able to point to F1 as the pinnicle of the sport. If indy cars on road courses could do a faster lap, then F1 would simply be considered another racing series. Remember that back in the days of the 1.5 liter formula, there were lots of faster series and F1, while it laid claim to having the worlds greatest drivers, didn't have the fastest cars, and was dismissed by some at the time as not being the pinnicle of the sport as there were series where you had to have bigger "equpment" to be a real driver. This is the biggest dilemma that F1 faces, they want to slow down the cars, but if the slow them down too much then they lose the claim to being the fastest and the whole thing implodes.
Cars today do not have higher top speeds today than yesterday. Cars today get around the track in less time. And understanding the difference is what F1 is all about. If all aero was banned, top speeds would go up (given a long enough straight), but braking distances, acceleration distances go up while cornering speeds go down. What would stop the car from enering orbit? Traction and Gravity.
I think that the point being made is that any body traveling through air will generate aerodynamic forces. To think that F1 designers will not take full advantage of that under whatever rules are in force is a bit naive. If you guys can figure out how to run a race in a vacuum though...
OK, you said you were a noob, so I won't be quite as "scathing" as I would had say, Viz posted this This is not (despite what some like to claim) a spec series - You manufacture your car, and if it's quicker than the others, good for you, the others gotta catch up. As for "similar lap times", how close do want them to be?! - One of the reasons they "can't overtake" (sic) is they're already too evenly matched. I checked this season, and the average gap between pole and 10th in the 11 races so far is ~1.5 seconds (!) - If I'd dropped #10 (who often messes up in Q3), this gap reduces to around a second.... [Largest; 2.9 seconds (on a 1:50 lap) in Malaysia. Smallest: 0.9 in Canada and Europe btw] Adding weight is what they do in "artificially" managed series - That ain't F1, sorry! I remember well the dominant years of Ferrari and Mclaren (both taking all but one race a couple of times) Wasn't boring to me! [It pissed me off when Mclaren did it, but "full respect" to 'em.] You better put your flamesuit on! No, no and thrice no! (Sorry Mike!) - This ain't Nascar either! I may be an old luddite, but I hate it when they deploy the SC, as I'm sure do the jockeys - Or at least the guys that have worked their butts off to build their gaps hate it - It's artificial, spoils strategies (unless you're Renault in Spain ), and is artificial (did I say that twice?!) - The *last* thing I want to see is phantom SC's (as in Nascar) when the field gets a little too spread out - "Gotta bunch 'em up or the Bubba will get confused!" - Screw that! Few things are as impressive as seeing a car (or team) disappear into the distance, whipping everyone's ass! - Boring? Not to me.... A demonstration of superior engineering, strategy, skill, and implementation - Great stuff! +1 As for your comments on the "Ferrari mystique", you should have been around when they were a laughing stock! - Their mystique has been built over the 60+ years of F1, not this season with the clowns running the show - Maybe study some history and you'll start to understand - The *only* team to have competed in every GP, more everything than anyone else etc. Like all teams they have their ups & downs, but there's only one Ferrari! Cheers, Ian
It isn't that there won't be some downforce, that's for sure going to happen, the difference is that there won't be nearly as much of it without wings and diffusers, and coupled with pretty high power to weight ratios, braking distances are going to be much longer and that's going to allow more passing. Oh yea, and the drivers skill level (and size of his manly equipment) is going to be a bigger issue and isn't that part of it too? Watch USAC sprints with no wings run and you get an idea of what it takes to drive a high powered car without aero aids. Car control at its finest. As the old saying goes "we build excitement"....
Dig up the pavement and let them run on dirt while you're at it. Pinnacle of motor sport and all that
don't get me wrong, I'm against equalizing cars, but having a season like 2002/2004 again when you just have to watch the start and you could bet your house on it that the top 2 would consist of a Ferrari, that's just rubbish...Although as a fan the results are good, to watch it was pretty boring.
Ian, I see what you're saying. I get that I know very little and you have been watching for years. Everything I'm suggesting isn't "fair" to the faster teams, I get that. I also understand that the top 3-4 teams run absolutely everything so there's no way any rules would ever be made that they didn't like....just presenting my ideas. I see the qualifying as so fascinating. Then the first lap or two the same, then the rest not so much. I think adding weight would make better racing than overboost or moveable aero. It reminds me of 'Ivan Stewart's Super Off Road' that I used to play at the arcade. You could buy nitros and then use them during the race. Once you were out of nitros, you had to actually just drive. Sounds like that's what most want to do to F1, I don't get it. It's like THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS or something.
Just because there are dominant teams at any given time doesn't mean that the rules need to be rewritten. Over time a quality team will have its highs and lows. Ferrari spent years in the wilderness and Williams at one point was nigh unbeatable. I expect that if they hang in long enough Force India will will a championship. No amount of rule rejiggering will help an HRT though. After the last few years what F1 needs is stability not more spec monkeying.
No offense intended - I think I put a smiley in there [You made some interesting points.] And that's fine of course. I happen to disagree that the top 3-4 teams run the show though; - As Dave noted, the top 3-4 teams change regularly [Even the big two aren't always there!] - The FIA rules with an iron fist (witness the "collapse" of the FOTA breakaway) - FOM pays them *all* too much money...... Hopefully, with Mad Max gone, the "technical working group" (made up of *all* the teams) will make progress working *with* the FIA to develop the sport.... The jury is still out, and it's early days for JT. OK - Fair enough. I do agree that quali' is about as good as it's ever been (ducks and covers!) - Get rid of the noob's after 20 minutes etc and move on seems to be working - Keeps 'em on the track more than the "good old days". Now they've done away with the stupid "start on your quali fuel" rule quali is a "good show". As to the races, some are complete snooze fests, others are epic, and the majority somewhere in the middle - Guess what? - It's always been that way..... I disagree with messing with weights - They're already super close in performance (OK, most of 'em) - We've seen 3 teams and 6 drivers win so far this year with many others knocking on the door - How close can they be? - I think even the HRT has been within the 107% rule all season (?) I don't want nitrous, but I *personally* (there's lots who disagree!) think KERS should be encouraged - Not a "standard box" as they seem to leaning towards, but pretty "free". Ferrari & Mclaren (the only guys who used it for the whole year) were getting on top if it when they ****-canned it..... And as I noted somewhere else, Porsche used a Williams developed flywheel system at the 24hrs at 'Ring recently - Let 'em at it! Cheers, Ian
Indeed. I think we should send an email to JT with that as "proposed rule #1"...... "NO SPEC MONKEYING!"
I was referring to the wingless USAC sprints that run on pavement, they put on a heck of show... But the idea of running on dirt is appealing and actually makes a lot of sense... Think about it, most of the roads in the world aren't paved, if you consider the third world and China and India, most of the people in the world don't have pavemet to drive on.. So you could make the case that they should run off pavement... With full bodies on dirt they'd be as much rubbin as racin... Put them all in WRC cars and turn em loose!!!! Now when you look at the car control skills and the guts of the WRC drivers I think those guys make the F1 guys look like a lot of crybabies and wussies... I walked the track just prior to the first Detroit GP and it was like a billiard table smooth. The F1 drivers all came in *****ing that it was "too rough for an F1 race". Bunch of *******. Five minutes of WRC in car footage has the hair on the back of my neck standing up more than it does in an entire F1 season.....
I'm not sure how seriously to take your comments but if you really think that F1 has to be dumbed down to the least common denominator you've missed the point.
Detroit GP street circuit = a billiard table? I have very hard time swallowing that one. Really? You must have some ugly billiard tables where you come from...
Ian, OK, good points. What's the primary objective of F1? 1 exciting to watch for fans 2 fastest car/ best development wins 3 best driver wins 4 ultimate showcase of auto performance 5 make money It seems this question would have to answered first. I'm sure it's a compromise, but one of these is #1, right? This would help determine how fair and regulated it should be.
