Real Racing Or Are We Being Fooled Again

[Chaparral]

I sort of watched the Bahrain race on and off on the laptop till 23 laps to go (our 'live' telecast didnt start until 2 hours later in Australia) - I dont know whether its just me but its still all about strategy (fuel/tyres) and 'race pace' and in fact there is little racing 'toe to toe' as they say - yes we have had a few 'moments' of racing in the first 3 GPs but nothing has changed too much in the 'racing department' from the last decade just a change in the front runners. Then you have a division in the grid with the KERS equipment which is again a 'strategic' piece of kit only good for 83 bhp for 6.6 seconds a lap so of no real use to those with it as its extra weight to carry and work out where to put it in the chassis and a pain in the arse for teams without it on the straights - so effectively null and void when it comes to performance or that word 'racing'....

One tyre supplier doesnt help the situation as effectively some team car designs will favour that tyre build and others will struggle and have no alternative in the way of a Goodyear or Michelin supplied days.

We have a 'spec' engine really - yes the Merc is probably the unit to have but essentially they're all very close and limited in what they can get out of it or improve in the power plant and they will be revised down further in the revs dept next season and tighter restrictions in other departments...........geez I wonder what I'm watching sometimes IRL or A1GP or is it in fact the supposed pinnacle of motor sport.......I wonder.

Signed

Still Disillusioned

PS yes its an age old question/discussion - I must be getting old

[dumrick]

I wouldn't say we're being fooled - we know what we are getting.

Formula 1 became that kind of game when engine configuration became mandatory, replacing the previous cap in capacity, with free number of cylinders (and even turbo-NA equivalences). From my point of view, we've been in that descending slope ever since, with things becoming more and more restricted to the point that even engine CG's are regulated, converting F1 in a "de facto" spec series, but without the reasonable volume tenders that go with it.
Performance gains, in this tight context, became possible only by huge investments in micro-engineering, and we got to the kind of budget we have now. So, the FIA created the kind of problem they say they are now trying to resolve.
On the other hand, we surely have a tighter pack than back in the more liberal days, when we had torquey V8's overtaking powerful high-power V12's in tight sections, for the V12 to get positions back at the straights.
The kind of driving skill required to negotiate the shortcomings and fully explore the advantages of a particular car configuration over the adversaries' also made, IMO, the driving much more interesting.
Historically, it's easy to place the beginning of this tendency at Max Mosley's election.

I've been a F1 fan since I was 6, in 1982, but now I watch it as I do IRL, GP2, A1GP, WTCC and such - without much passion. If it wsan't for the ACO-regulated series, I wouldn't be passionate about car racing any longer.

[RacingManiac]

One tyre supplier doesnt help the situation as effectively some team car designs will favour that tyre build and others will struggle and have no alternative in the way of a Goodyear or Michelin supplied days.

I don't understand this....tyre war never help the racing aspect because it always ends up being one tyre is better than the other, and good tyres flatter the crap cars. The fact that there is one tyre make out there and that everyone use the same thing means you should design your car to make the tyre work, not the other way around, there should not be any reason to do otherwise anyway. At the end of the day they are the only thing thats touching the ground and it should be the top priority to work the tyres....

Back to the question though, I think the fact that the cars are so close in terms of pace(even with a fairly big discrepency in design with the whole DDD deal), means that if anything its going to be the smaller things like strategy that'll make a difference. I think its a lot harder to pass when everyone is running so close in terms of pace, that even if you make the car easier to follow they are still going to be processional in nature. What it is now though is that if the driver has the guts to go for it they can attempt to pass as opposed to getting into the dirty air in front and have to slow down....

[RH1300S]

Well, it's not suddenly become bike racing - but I see a big improvement.

I don't need to see actually overtakes to enjoy the racing. After all, if the faster cars start ahead, they are pretty much going to finish ahead. When did you last see someone slow overtake someone fast

What I have seen is more overtaking (can't back this up with any hard facts) - in some cases KERS cars making moves on non KERS cars. I have also seen more cars running close together and drivers having a go.

I would honestly say that (given the obvious limitations with carbon brakes and high downforce cars) the racing has improved with cars more able to get together on the race track.

I quite like F1 as it is right now.

[WhiteBlue]

seconded

[Belatti]

I have been reading a lot of posts of these kind since I entered the wonderful world of internet motorsports forums. Often the finger is pointed (me included) at spec engines, control tyres, etc, etc... but now Im thinking a little beyond...

You know, kart races are what maybe all of you would call "real" racing but still those have basically the same cars, engines and tyres. They dont overtake as much as people would think but still they call that "real" racing.

After all, what is "real" racing Can I have some definition here please? I think that our perception is distorted a little bit by this and that.

Many would go to a F1 test to see a lonely car lapping a hundred laps arround a track and still be entertained watching the driver moves, but then you see 20 of those cars and if they dont overtake each other 10 times a lap... OH! This is sooo boring!!!

To me, real racing can mean a lot of things: At Lemans you would hardly see an overtake, its all about administration and pace. WRC doesnt ever overtake but people never questioned that. Its spectacular to watch a rally driver at the limit, literally doing his job. In kart races I dont see much overtaking either, but watching 5 cars almost welded to each other running for 20 laps and finishing all within a couple of seconds is something to tell. In touring cars I dont see much overtaking, AGAIN! But you see drivers dealing with 1400Kg behemoths at 260kph knowing their tyres wont last the whole race if they dont control their pace... yes you could try overtaking but in the closing laps you will suffer it.

Finally, F1 !!! Its not only racing, its more than that. In cars were drivers have to have a "slow motion" head to deal with the biggest circle of aceleration in all the world, also a good strategy (and so a team of engineers) is predominant. Drivers with a good "pit wall" have won races with cars that had no chance. Its not the case of Ferrari these days but it was when Mr. Brawn was there. A good team calculates strategy with a surjeon precision and doesnt fail in pitstops. A good racing engineer knows what his driver is capable of doing -and not doing- and doesnt design ridiculous strategies (Toyota, BMW at Bahrain... )

In these days, F1 may not be as wild as in the 70s, but it is like chess --the science-game--. The same way I get astonished when I analyze a Bobby Fischer vs. Anatoly Karpov match in my computer I enjoy watching how a team "micro-engineers" -as dumrick said- (hi dumrick you were missed arround here ) what it is still allowed, how a driver with the same equipment is faster than his team mate, how a driver with suposedly worse equipment is faster than another rival (Barrichello 5th and struggling with Piquet when his team mate overtook Hamilton easily to go for the win ) and how engineers in the pit wall can ruin everything or be a part of the sucess.

F1 is more about a team than ever. Ferrari proved it in the past. Neither money (Toyota) or better drivers alone can win. A chess match played by a team.

[WhiteBlue]

I like the showcasing of drivers. When you watch Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso beat their team mates you realise that the driver really makes a big difference. The only gripes I have with the current format is the skinny track of the cars. We have huge wide circuits now and a further reduction of downforce and increase in mechanical grip would be good. The other two are refuelling and race fuel qually.

[DaveKillens]

It's a good question, but one I keep hearing on a constant basis. Things sure have changed since the Schumacher era of just a few years ago. If that kind of racing is what turned you on, then I guess what's now happening is disappointing. But nothing stays the same forever, and motorsport, just like many things, moves on with the times, and constantly changes. Personally, I like what's going on. Apart from the crazy start times for some races, that messes me up.
The previous two seasons we saw the title coming down to the last race, and the winner decided by just one point. Amazing and exciting. This year the order has been shaken up, with different faces appearing at the top and in the results. There are much more serious attempts in passing slower cars, and sometimes we have witnessed some real good scraps. So what if your favorite team or driver is having problems coping with the changes. Now we get to see how they handle the problems.
One of my favorite sayings is "When the going gets tough, the tough get going". Now we get to see just how good they are, when times aren't favorable, when they have to deal with and overcome obstacles.
Geez, if the race was decided purely based on lap times, then it would be boring. Why even get interested or watch when most likely nothing will happen and all you will see is a procession, with minimal surprises? Sorry, that isn't my cup of tea.
Each time I settle in and tune in for a race, one thought always comes to my mind.. "I wonder what's going to happen, I wonder what surprises I will witness in the next two hours?"
That being said, I totally despise the politics, especially what's going on these days. And I'm not enthusiastic about future proposals. I do want more freedom for the designers, I would love to see cars that are really different, and not cut from the same mold. Right now the regulations forces the cars to be very similar in many areas. That sucks, bring back the V-12's, the turbos, innovation on a grand scale.
But personally, right now, I think we've got a good thing going.

[ISLAMATRON]

F1 will never get back to the type of "racing" like it had in the early 80's and 90's until i allows ground effect downforce and minimzes the effect of the wings.

Vettle said it yesterday, He was clearly faster than Hamilton, but as soon as he got close he started sliding and that wore out the tires quickly.

With ground effects the slipstream is much stronger than the turbulence thrown off by the car in front.

even if you put todays's F1 cars on an a huge oval like Indy they would not be able to race close and pass like the Indy cars do. Why? Because the INdy cars, like the 80's & early 90's relied on underbody ground force/venturi tunnels and all that for down force and the small wings for balance.

That type of downforce package makes alot of downforce without producing alot of turbulence, and is less susceptible to losing downfoce when following a car.

[RH1300S]

F1 will never get back to the type of "racing" like it had in the early 80's and 90's until i allows ground effect downforce and minimzes the effect of the wings.

Vettle said it yesterday, He was clearly faster than Hamilton, but as soon as he got close he started sliding and that wore out the tires quickly.

With ground effects the slipstream is much stronger than the turbulence thrown off by the car in front.

even if you put todays's F1 cars on an a huge oval like Indy they would not be able to race close and pass like the Indy cars do. Why? Because the INdy cars, like the 80's & early 90's relied on underbody ground force/venturi tunnels and all that for down force and the small wings for balance.

That type of downforce package makes alot of downforce without producing alot of turbulence, and is less susceptible to losing downfoce when following a car.

From the little I understand about aerodynamics - I can only AGREE

Quite why the FIA didn't minimise wings and then allow full underbody aero I don't know. It seesms to me that you can have a true ground effect chassis and still be able to limit it's downforce by keeping the central reference plane and enforcing the "skirts" at a height ABOVE the refernce place.

[DaveKillens]

Quite why the FIA didn't minimise wings and then allow full underbody aero I don't know. It seesms to me that you can have a true ground effect chassis and still be able to limit it's downforce by keeping the central reference plane and enforcing the "skirts" at a height ABOVE the refernce place.

That would be a good solution. But a little history trip. Back when ground effects were rampant in Formula One, one opinion was that cars were going just too quick through the corners, and led to fears about safety.

Here's a quote from Lauda...

To be honest, there was no such thing as cornering technique in the ground effect era. “Cornering” was a euphemism for rape practised on the driver. . . When you came into a corner you had to hit the accelerator as hard as you possibly could, build up speed as quickly as possible and, when things became unstuck, bite the bullet and give it even more. In a ground effect car, reaching the limit was synonymous with spinning out.
— Niki Lauda

Others described it as blindly throwing yourself through the corner, with no chance of recovery if anything did not go right.

So it was considered a safety risk, and banned. There really was no consideration as to what would happen to cars after ground effects, they just banned it, and left things to develop as we now find.

[ISLAMATRON]

It can be safely limited instead of all out banned... This is 1 place where F1 can look to Indycar for guidence.

Basically Oval racing is almost like a huge wind tunnel, and they have created a formula where the cars can race closely and pass. This was also true of CCWs.

[Scotracer]

F1 to me meant ultimate speed with noise and passion.

Now? We've got pseudo-fast racing cars that not only look terrible but sound about as harmonious as a fat man farting and F1 is now as passionate as a business conference on toilet paper sales.

I've lost a lot of interest.

[ISLAMATRON]

F1 to me meant ultimate speed with noise and passion.

Now? We've got pseudo-fast racing cars that not only look terrible but sound about as harmonious as a fat man farting and F1 is now as passionate as a business conference on toilet paper sales.

I've lost a lot of interest.

What racing series are faster than F1? Are the cars no longer loud? These car look worse than the late 70's, & 80's monstrocities that were on track?

Your favorite team or driver maybe underperforming but that doesnt mean F1 is any less impressive than it has ever been.

The cars now are faster now than when they had 50% more power 20 years ago.

[RacingManiac]

one doesn't have to look very far though to see what is the deal with trying to go away from ground effect dominant formula. Look at the current LMP cars now. In an effort to curb the accidents of the pre-2004 flat bottom cars, the current plank-equipped, ride height-limited LMP1 and LMP2 regulation were introduced, with SPEC tunnel. Yet as the tires developed and the technology matures that the cars becomes so dependent on the floor that once the car is in any way in less than ideal position they tend to take flight...Same issue was happening in IRL with multiple accidents of cars flipping into the catch fence...