After watching the past few GP2 races and the Cart race in Edmonton, i cannot help but ask "Is a spec race series a bad thing?" Watching the Cart race there was plenty of passing on the track and a close finish with the top 4 all crossing the line within 5 seconds of each other. True a safety car helped to bunch up the pack but the #2 car spun out fell to 9th and made it back to 4th and the #1 car on the restart smacked the wall and blew it. As much as i like the engineering challenge that F1 is the ontrack action and close racing that the spec series offer is just much better than the high speed parade that F1 has become. Perhaps the FIA should look at a spec tub with a spec aero package and the teams can bulid the engine, transmission and suspension systems for the car.
In my opinion no it's not that bad, but it kinda goes against the original sprit of F1. It's supposed to be about the car and how fast the teams can make them but it has gotten out of hand. The racing is more like a parade and the majority of passing is done in the pits these days. There has to be a way to find a happy medium but whos know if it will ever happpen.
Two ways to possibly get more passing without interfering with the current cars is to either reduce the track length (hard) or increase the number of cars on the grid (easier). NASCAR Nextel Cup races have ~40 cars and the track lengths aren't as big as in F1. The shortest track in the Nextel Cup is 0.5 miles! They have about 7 races on tracks less than a mile. Most of their tracks are around 1.5 miles long. Most F1 tracks are around 3 miles in length with Monaco being the shortest at 2 miles (which is my favorite partly due to seeing the cars close to each other) and the longest is in Belgium at over 4 miles. I know that road courses under 1 mile long would really suck and not be fun to watch since speeds wouldn't get as high and there wouldn't be a variety of turns so I suggest increasing the number of cars on the grid. Maybe 3 cars per team and have 15 teams instead of 10 teams or 20 teams with 2 cars each. I rather not have F1 turn into a spec-series, we already have spec-series races. People can watch those races if they want spec-series instead of F1.
To make the field bigger would only make for a longer parade line. It would also make it very hard to deal with lapped traffic if you are the leader. A huge field such as that would only work on an oval track. The track lengths in F1 are just fine, I think the problems are one, the circuits are too narrow to pass on, two, the aerodynamics makes it tough to get close to another car while attempting to pass. You lose downforce on your front wing which causes understeer so people tend to back off. There is really no easy solution for this other than to somehow regulate the wings and such. Champcars have less trouble passing and they have somewhat similar aero. F1 cars for some strange reason seem not to slipstream as well as a champcar or a stock car.
Spec series usually have closer, more entertaining racing, but very little innovation. F1 is all about innovation, but the result is plain to see. As it is, I think F1 has evolved close to the ultimate capability of most humans. I don't see lap times getting drastically lower without addressing human physiology. I'd like to see a racing series with more transfer to the real world. How about a series where: 1. Each team is allowed a given allotment of energy with which to power their car. The exact type of fuel and how it is used would be unlimited. This should prompt some development fuels. 2. Each car must pass an emissions test. Prompt development in emissions control with minimum affect on performance. 3. Very limited aerodynamics. Either no wings, or an ultimate limit on the amount of downforce that each car can generate. Aero provides very little transfer to real world cars, yet provides a huge performance gain to race only vehicles. Restricting it ought to greatly reduce speeds and prompt creative ways to gain back handling. There probably some more things, but I figure that would be a good start.
I may be wrong on this, but I think one reason that the IRL, Champ Car, and GP2 races have more passing is that they allow ground effect tunnels. My understanding is that this makes them work better in traffic.
This is possible, i actually never thought of that but how does it explain how an f1 car loses downforce in the front if it gets too close to another car while a champcar while having the same effect it doesn't seem as severe. Could it be because of more turbulent air coming from the diffusers on an F1 car? Anybody have any idea?
F1 mainly use the top of the car to produce downforce ... CART cars use the side pod tunnels to suck the car down. The side pods are much longer than wings and thus more effective. The other point though is maybe CART cars just run with heaps less downforce anyway ... thus following is not such a big deal, as not much downforce to loose? Pete
I think that would be correct. The mechanical/aero grip ration on an F1 car might be 1:1 whereas in CART it might be 1.5:1 or something of that nature. Furthermore, the aero grip would also be less dependent on over air due to the ground effect nature of their grip.
As the rules keep reducing the amount of downforce the designers can have, the engineers come up with new and more efficient wing designs to claw the lost downforce back. As a result of this, the air becomes more and more disrupted behind the car. Focusing on the effects of the rule changes for 2005: The front wing has been moved upwards away from the ground to reduce downforce. A side effect of this has been that it has placed the wing in more turbulence from the diffuser and wings of the car in front. Thus the closer the car behind gets to the car in front, the more downforce they're going to lose and hence will suffer understeer through higher speed (i.e. more aero-dependant) corners.
Another area that F1 teams work on in the wind tunnels is the amount of turbulent airflow behind the car to upset the car behind them. In theory the rear wing and diffuser should create a huge hole in the air for the car behind it allowing the car to come up from behind and sling shot by. But with all of the flick ups, winglets, notches on the wing end plates, barge boards etc. create huge vortecies that is about the motorsport version of aircraft wake turbulance. Kimi coming up close to Michael at silverstone was the perfect example of this. It the FIA has a spec chassis and spec Aero package that cannot be altered and give the teams freadon with the engine, suspension, and gearbox might just be the balance that might make F1 exciting for the spectator yet still an engineering challenge.
It must be said that although some forms of spec racing does provide more on track excitement than F1, that is not the primary reason for F1. F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport that is concerned with the development of technology. Where F1 is going is that the development of technology is being restricted in the name of cost saving. There was some great on track action when technological development was not restricted through rules and regaultions. The more rules that are designed to limit spending and to curtail the influence of technology in F1, the less on track action is seen. It will be a sad day when F1 converts to being a partial spec series. Even with a spec tub, spec tires (?), and then spec chassis the development of technology in F1 will be limited. I have always held the opinion that F1 is a constructors championship more than a driver's championship and that is the way it should stay.
Well, some of this is right and wrong. GP2 and Indy Cars are both flat bottom series like F1. CART is a semi-ground effect chassis. I say semi-ground effect because although they use curved side pods (underneath) they don't use side skirts to seal the underbody. That makes a huge difference. With a full ground effect car in the 80s they were generating up to three times the normal cornering force for the size of the tires. In other words without the ground effects you would have to widen the tires 3x to get the same cornering. Now as far as CART cars go I don't think they really run with that much less downforce. Take a look at the downforce generated by the 2001 Penske-Reynard-Honda 01I Road track configuration: Downforce: 2750 lbs. @ 150 mph, with 924 lbs. of drag 3961 lbs. @ 180 mph, with 1331 lbs. of drag 4888 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 1644 lbs. of drag Lift-to-drag ratio: 2.97:1 A Short oval configuration: Downforce: 1675 lbs. @ 150 mph, with 725 lbs. of drag 2412 lbs. @ 180 mph, with 1043 lbs. of drag 2978 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 1289 lbs. of drag Lift-to-drag ratio: 2.31:1 A Super-speedway configuration: Downforce: 1000 lbs. @ 230 mph, with 950 lbs. of drag Lift-to-drag ratio: 1.05:1 Now given recent rule changes (on both series) to curb cost I don't think that the F1 teams are running with that much more downforce. So why the discrepancy in speed? Well, a CART, or Indy Car weighs a lot more, power to weight isn't as good as an F1 car. They also run with cast iron brakes (another reason there's more overtaking opportunities) add that in with the extra weight). They also believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that none of the three other series run with traction control, which means driver skill is much more of a factor. Mistakes are magnified. More emphasis is placed on the driver than the team engineer. And yes on Ovals the Areo packages on the CART and Indy cars do develop a lot less turbulence than an F1 car at 200mph allowing for a car running in "dirty" air to be more stable, thus having a better chance at overtaking.
I read somewhere that modern cast iron brakes, brake just as well as carbon brakes. Infact a few years ago (for Zanardi) Williams made some cast iron brakes as he didn't like the feel of the carbon brakes. The only difference is ofcourse the unsprung weight. This is why carbon brakes on road cars is all about show, wanking ... call it what you like, but a complete waste of time (especially) on a road car. Anyway an interesting thread/post ... but I personally think that we have a great series this year. Pete
This year has been a little bit better than 04 Ferrari double runaway. But other than Imola and Nurburgring races this season has been nothing but a high speed parade up front back behind the leaders is has been not bad. After watching Justin Wilson hound Paul Tracy like MS did to Fernando at Imola. On top of that make a few highly aggressive overtaking moves including bumping tires with Timo Glock and avoiding the spinning Glock. I started to remember what great racing is all about.
Rob, Did you not watch Silverstone? That was a great high speed chess game between JPM and Alonso ... watching the pit exit was awesome. Great battle. Again I come down to the fact that mere passing does not make a race exciting ... watch a bike race to see what I mean, easy pass after easy pass ... yawn. It is the battle that is important and at Silverstone we had a full on fight on the track. I really enjoyed it. Pete
I did watch Silverstone and quite frankly making passes while the driver was coming out of the pits was not racing the only real good racing i saw was Kimi polishing the diffuser on Michael's car and his pass on Alonso Other than that it really was not that great of a race. If the wake is so bad that the car behind cannot pass because it upset the aero balance of the car behind, where is the chance for over taking except on tracks that are wide and the driver getting passed is asleep behind the wheel to where he does not see the attempt. If the car behind cannot get close enough to make a quick move up beside the car infront then the driver in front all they have to do is block that move. the end result passing in the pits. JMHO
Rob, You are still equating passing with racing. What I saw at Silverstone (via the TV) was 2 guys at the front who were battling for the lead ... yeah there never was a on track pass, but there was plenty of potential (thanks to pit stops and strategy) for Alonso to have beaten JPM ... and it was close. As you know I am hoping Bernie and the FIA will remove fuel stops so the racing can return to the track, but until then ... sigh ... what we must have atleast is a bit of drama. IMO all you need for a great race is 2 racers battling for a win. Does a pass have to happen? ... well no, but the possibility must exist (and it did at Silverstone thanks to Alonso never giving up). I do have to admit with the current rules we have a problem because passing is just too hard and thus the potential is deminished. Pete
Not true. What i am saying is that if a driver is hanging on the rear end of another car IMHO is not racing it is a high speed parade. What i like to see if 2 drivers going side by side wheel to wheel that is racing. I am going to use horse racing for an example. If a horse comes out of the gate and all the others just fall in line compaired to a few horses coming out of the gate and staying side by side all the way to the finish. Everyone will take the second scenario over the first in terms of excitement. Was there any passing in that second scenario?? NO but it still makes for an exciting race
Good example , and yes I agree. I think we had JPM under pressure from Alonso (and what a start!) ... that is a massive improvement from last year where MS did not even have to try at all ... Well, I enjoyed the race anyway ... , except I'd have liked to see Kimi take the win. Pete
Kimi's chagres from mid pack was about the highlight of the 2 past races. The sad part is it also shows how superior the Mclaren and Renaults are to the rest of the field. This year we have a 2 team runaway instead of the 1 team runaway of last year.
