Agree. I enjoy the qualifying way more than the actual race.
I loved surf fishing. So much so I built one of those really cool rod and cooler holders for the front of my truck. Put a giant cooler on it and stood up about six poles and headed down the road. When we stopped for breakfast I had to take the 3 on the left and put them in the back of the truck. Imagine holding a pry bar in front of your face and having to look around it. Try it! I don't know how they do it.
To drive that home... This season, the fastest race laps are usually 3-4 the qualy pace, and full tanks is only part of that equation... It's really dismal...most of the time everyone's holding station, 1.5 out, not wanting to enter the dirty air zone - waiting for a few quick laps to do and undercut or overcut.
Just thinking outside the square, for quick release from the car with halo, I think some type of "explosive" shear bolts to separate the halo anchor points activated by a guarded switch would assist in giving the drivers a quicker escape mechanism in the event of fire, etc
While comparing a NASCAR oval-track race to an F1 season may definitely be comparing apples to oranges, there is an interesting comparison stat in the new issue of Car & Driver. They claim that in the 2018 Daytona 500, a 500-mile oval-track race for 40 cars, there were a total of 6267 passes throughout the field. In comparison, in the entire 2017 F1 season, there were a total of 435 passes. Take that stat any way you want....
I'm not surprised one bit: NASCAR is constant action. It's heaven for people addicted to overtaking! F1 will never match that; not in a million years. .
Even more exciting is that 3492 of those passes were backwards, and at least 2142 of them were done while the car was airborne.
The trouble with F1 is that, unlike NASCAR and, currently, IndyCar, it is not a spec series. When all the chassis are the same (or effectively so), you will have some degree of parity and thus, lots of passing. The whole idea of F1 is that the chassis are not all the same, so you will always have some "haves" and some "have nots". And that has to be accepted. But it still should be easier for the "haves" to be able to run close and pass each other. Sports car racing also involves different chassis but tries to equalize things with their "balance of performance" adjustments. The problem is that, just like with DRS, that is an artificial solution and often they get it wrong, as they seem to have at today's Le Mans. Hopefully, F1 will never try to go the "bop" route. And this is nothing new. If you look at F1 through the years, there were usually a few teams that dominated each year; the usual number seems to have been 3 (just as it is this year) or 4. In 1973, for example, it was Lotus/Tyrrell/McLaren. In 1976, it was Ferrari/McLaren/Tyrrell. In 1983 it was Ferrari/Renault/Brabham. And so on...
The trouble with F1, in my view, comes from the aero. Designers have been allowed to optimise aero to get maximum down force, air penetration, etc... But they don't have to take into account the turbulences created by their design, and left in the wake of cars. These turbulences affect a car following too closely, and rob it of its downforce. Racing soon becomes processional in F1 because of that, as drivers have to save their tyres, and cannot follow too closely. .
It's no trouble: it's the nature of the beast. F1 always had teams with various financial resources and different technical competences, building cars with different degrees of performance. There are other series to watch for those wanting parity at all cost.
. Mostly correct,... except I firmly believe that turbulence behind the cars is factored in. In fact it’s designed in. And purposefully maximized. Part of a winning strategy is not allowing your competition to pass you. I am completely convinced the teams are designing cars fo maximum turbulence. Why wouldn’t they??
Well, this is why aero should be restricted, IMO. Like you say, turbulences are a major factor why there is less close racing and overtaking in GP. That goes against what the spectators expect; it makes the races dull. Boring races turn the public away, and inevitably diminishing attendance will affect the business. I thought that Liberty wanted to develop F1. Why don't they do anything about it?
Just as a trial, I'd like to see Liberty (or someone) do a trial where they take three different cars and have them run with no front wings, rear wings or other aero devices (like barge boards); all the downforce would come from the basic chassis and bodywork. Obviously the cars won't be able to run as fast, but the trial will be to see if following and overtaking is any easier.
Incidentally, most old school Nascar fans are fairly disillusioned with their sport at the moment as well - the chase, segment racing (and other such gimmicks to create artificial drama) aero-dependancy, cookie-cutter 1.5m racetracks, the aesthetics of the cars since the COT, the lack of competitors coming from 'grassroots' racing, compared to 'kids' coming from corporate driver development programs...
I wouldn’t doubt that this is somewhat true, but “maximum turbulence” would have a negative effect on the car creating the turbulence. It takes energy to ‘disturb’ air...energy that should be used to make the car go forward faster. I think they are straddling the line...trying for laminar flow when the DRS is open...and accepting some level of turbulence when it’s closed.
I have not watched more than maybe 5 minutes total each season, just to remind me that IMO it sucks now. And it still does. If you paint every car the same color you cannot tell them apart. Beyond that, I won't deal with the politics of it, it's gotten so bad now.
Unless you piss of Facebook, then you and everything you have ever posted (on FB) is erased. Ask me how I know....
