Purist vs Spectacle?

[bhall]

Why is it exciting watching 1 car lap the whole field?

Along the lines of what Ray said, if the situation presents itself, I dearly love the spectacle of a team/car/driver combination that's so good you no longer wonder if they'll find success, you wonder what barriers of apparent possibility they'll break while they achieve it. The 2004 French Grand Prix is an excellent example of this.

I recognize that's it tough when fan loyalty puts someone on the other side of that coin, though. Last year was a nightmare for my fandom.

Beyond that, I like the ultimate suspense of wondering how and when someone is going to stop that success. (On the track, that is. Not with additional regulations.) Because, one way or another, it always happens. At some point, no matter how good the run is, it will come to an end, and when that happens, it usually happens as the result of an exhilarating paradigm shift.

At least, it did. These days, there's no paradigm to shift.

[Just_a_fan]

I wonder, why is "artificiality" decried?

Because people are not seeing their favourite team/driver succeeding and so look to blame the artificiality of the rules.

The simple truth is that the rules are the same for all the players. And all rules add artificiality to the sport. Any rule that is imposed creates artificial competition. Any rule that is imposed creates the opportunity that one or other player is advantaged to the disadvantage of the other players. That's inherent in the nature of rules.

Let us be clear: without rules, F1 would have died years ago because it would have cost way too much to compete.

The FIA asked Pirelli to design a tyre that wouldn't last, that would give closer racing. And Pirelli have done that fabulously well. The result is close racing which is unpredictable. Current F1 is, in some ways, more realistic now because the rules have injected some "noise" in to the mix. The days where one team can dominate because they have lucked in to the best answer to the current rules are gone. The days of open competition based on being able to quickly respond to the challenges thrown at you on a per weekend basis are here.

[mx_tifoso]

...
The FIA asked Pirelli to design a tyre that wouldn't last, that would give closer racing. And Pirelli have done that fabulously well. The result is close racing which is unpredictable. Current F1 is, in some ways, more realistic now because the rules have injected some "noise" in to the mix.

Something worth noting is that it isn't as unpredictable as it seems, given that an approximate order has been somewhat established thus far. It's just that top 6(?) teams are in a slight state of flux, but they just rotate around in a hardly ever before seen manner. But it's not as bad as it seems, soon enough we will have a more established pecking order as the tyres are understood better.

You can count on a team being in their approximate position seen in all previous races.

[raymondu999]

The simple truth is that the rules are the same for all the players. And all rules add artificiality to the sport.

Personally - aside from the artificially floppy wing, I consider the rules artificial in that they've come in sort of as a "cure" rather than a prevention. For example, if the FIA had said since 2009, "though shalt not use funky exhaust software to beautify thy diffuser" then I absolutely don't mind. But they said it afterwards. Rules in my view should be pre-emptive in nature, and not blocking.

[Cam]

Let us be clear: without rules, F1 would have died years ago because it would have cost way too much to compete.

Maybe, maybe not. It was never allowed to go that way.

F1 has currently no facility for a 6 wheeled car. Now, a 6 wheeled car may be labelled stupid and the costs would be outrageous, however the old F1 allowed a 6 wheeled car. It was awesome. Not so much for winning championships, but simply because it existed. What a show! It was born purely to find a better car. No other category of motor racing has ever or will ever be like that. And that's what the old F1 was all about. Innovation, experimentation, domination. The rules are so screwed tight now that teams are left trying to curve air around side pods - whoopee. Opening up the rules probably will increase costs. Who cares. I'd rather see 10 races a year with the 10 finest cars, built by the 10 finest engineers, driven by the 10 finest drivers that this planet has to offer. And I'd pay top dollar to see it. I'd also love to see what they come up with to win races.

The real F1. Is there no room for this at all?

[Cam]

Here's a list (that I cannot take credit for, nor is it complete) of F1 engineering innovations conceived to make the car better. Over the last couple of years, nothing really has been groundbreaking - a pipe for wind and hot air flow - wow!

2012 F-duct - no wait we had that… brake fins, c'mon we can do better than that……. Pull Rod Front Sus… wait, had that too…… Any others?

2011 Exhaust Blown Diffuser
2010 Double Diffuser
2010 F-Duct
2005 Mass Damper (Renault)
1998 High exhaust layout (Ferrari)
1997 Electronic braking distribution device (was driver controlled in the 1998 McLaren)
1996 Aerodynamically profiled wishbones suspension (Tyrrell)
1995 Electronic handbrake for start (Ligier and/or  Benetton?)
1995 Electronic clutch (no clutch pedal)
1993 Aero fences
1992-93 Anti-wheel spin traction control / Anti-skid regulator
1992 Drive by wire throttle (McLaren)
1990 Fully raised nose (Tyrrell)
1989 Gear change paddle at steering wheel
1989 Semi-automatic gearbox (Ferrari first)
1988-89 Aero boxes are back
1986 Rear diffuser (Williams first)
1986 Pneumatic valve gear (Lotus-Renault)
1985 Data logging / Telemetry (Renault?)
1984 "Coke bottle waist" (bottle neck chassis shape ahead of the rear wheels)
1983 Computer-controlled active suspension (Lotus first, continued in 1987, then perfected by Williams in 1992)
1981 Carbon fiber chassis (Lotus and McLaren, in 1983 chassis were made completely of carbon fiber)
1981 Twin chassis (Lotus)
1978 Carbon fiber brakes (Brabham, common in 1992)
1978 Fan car (Brabham)
1977 Turbo (Renault)
1977 Ground effects skirts / Wing cars (Lotus)
1977 Radial tires
1976 6-wheeler (Tyrrell)
1971 Gas turbine engine (Lotus)
1970 Inboard suspension (Lotus)
1970 Wedge-shaped car (Lotus)
1970 Slick tires
1970 Side mounted radiators (Lotus?)
1969 4 wheel drive
1968 Movable airfoil brakes / Movable wings (Brabham)
1968 Wings for added downforce (Lotus)
1967 Engine and gearbox as fully stress loading bearing
1966 H16 engine (two V8 back to back at 180 degrees, BRM)
1962 Monocoque chassis (Lotus)
1960 Sophisticated suspension systems (double wishbones and coil springs)
1959 Mid-engine layout (Cooper)
1956 Disk brakes (Vanwall)
1954 Streamlined body (Mercedes)

F1 (did) lead the way and industry followed. Kids dreamed of driving a turbo for the first time - then they could when it came to the consumer market. What is there to shout about now - close racing? Mixed results? So, just like the other motorsports.... great. My kid won't be dreaming to drive cautiously at 3/4 speed while piping air through his car and flapping a wing. Nor will I see that innovation in next years sedan.

*sniff* it's really gone for good isn't it.....

[Richard]

You've missed out flexible wings and coanda exhaust outlets. Actually the coanda is very impressive because that is what they tried to explicitly ban.

Overall, I think the point is that innovation is limited to small areas due to a process of natural evolution that converges on an optimum configuration. We are seeing a law of diminishing returns. The concept of a racing car has been around for a very long time, the obvious gross variations have been tried and tested so engineers have to scratch around in the details to find nuances.

In addition, where engineers once had to use engineering judgement, nowadays the use of computers and wind tunnels rapidly identifies the optimum. That limits human ingenuity to finding loopholes in the rules. I see all the innovations of this century (or possibly earlier) are about loopholes, nothing to do with new technologies.

What is happening is the consequence of modern computational technology combined with a maturing understanding of the engineering. If we liberalise the rules in order to achieve divergent solutions, all that would happen is rapid convergence at the optimum configuration within one or two seasons.

Do what you like with the rules, but I am sure that the variation between teams will lie in how they optimise fine detail, so it is a natural consequence that we have to seek delight in fine detail.

Of course one antidote to this would be to limit the computational power, wind tunnel time, and testing time. Then engineers would have to rely more on their judgement and creativity.

The ultimate solution would be to change one random clause rule every October. That'd sort the men from the boys. Darwin would love that, after all nature's riches arise from random gene mutations. So why not try that approach in F1?

[markc]

DD was 2009
Brawn GP, Williams and Toyota spotted the loophole and designed it into their cars for the start of the season, the other teams worked on their solutions following its acceptance just prior to China 2009.

2010 saw all teams adopt it in optimised form for their cars when the expected ban wasn't delivered for 2010 but 2011. This ban allowed exhaust blown diffusers.

The EBD to which you attribute to 2011 is actually off-throttle blown diffusers as the innovation, but that's 2010 and 2011, EBDs have been in use for some time in F1 - MP4-18 for example.

Oh and the off-throttle was also further sub divided into hot or cold blowing!

[Richard]

Sorry for another post but this thought is on a slightly different tangent ...

One simple rule change that would really mix things up would be to massively restrict telemetry. Then teams would thrive or fall on engineering judgement due to the limited data set. Fortune would favour the brave and punish the foolhardy.

Only let the teams have safety critical data during a race, such as temperatures. So for example if KERS fails you can't reset it on the fly, instead a team should suffer for producing an unreliable design. The fuel gauge would be an indicator on the cockpit and maybe a warning light when nearing empty, no fuel telemetry to the pit. Get rid of the rev indicator and the red lights telling a driver to change gear, make him use his judgement.

I'm not saying we have to be neanderthal about it, the teams could have full data after the race, but there would be lot less certainty out on track.

[Richard]

Oh and the off-throttle was also further sub divided into hot or cold blowing!

That's a perfect example. Blowing a diffuser in teh MP4-18 era was once a radical experiment with dubious outcome, teams either had it or not. Last year the innovation lay in how hot or cold it was, a relatively tiny nuance imperceptible to the outside observer. However, it was radical step and delivered 2 WCC and 2 WDC to Red Bull.

It may have been barely perceptible but I'd say it was just as radical as adopting turbos, or 6 wheels.

[rjsa]

Formula 1 brand was built on something other than over rulling, PR Golden Boy Drivers, unfailable engines, control tyres and processional races. That Bernie managed to keep harvesting viewers and value after that status quo prevailed is really beyond my understanding. F1 until very recently was running on branding and past glory IMHO.

Pretty much like why in h**l my wife would burn U$8K on a leather Hermes purse that does not do any better than the U$1K Channel one. Not to mention the reasonably priced ones.

Now it seems to bring the competition back in scene. If you look back, cars failed to the point of drivers being allowed to discard results. Tyres where messed up and caused much more bias when one brand had the upper hand above the other one(s). There was more than one possible strategie and quite often someone would try something unexpected and come around passing the whole field. Because no one would simulate the farts the drivers take and come up with the optimum way to do it. Those where machines going beyond the well controlled conditions, trying the new and falling appart in the way. There is no more such thing. There is no being purist about what's there. There is no pinnacle to preserve. It's gone.

[Fat_T0ny]

WHen I said it would be Mclaren vs Ferrari lapping the whole field if the rules were more liberal. I should of said it would be Mclaren vs Ferrari with no field. Being a purist is all fine, but in the real world there is a thing called money. No one is going to poor money down a endless hole for no return. If F1 was more for the purists, it would be restricted to only a handfull of people who can afford to burn money in the pursuit of speed.

Be thankfull we have a viable sport. There is still plenty of innovation left in F1.

You need money in the real world.

[bhall]

What does money have to do with restrictive regulations?

Think about that for a moment before you answer.

[Cam]

One simple rule change that would really mix things up would be to massively restrict telemetry. Then teams would thrive or fall on engineering judgement due to the limited data set. Fortune would favour the brave and punish the foolhardy.

That's a great idea and it would put the destiny of the race back in the hands of the team rather than a control component. Nice one.

Oh and the off-throttle was also further sub divided into hot or cold blowing!

That's a perfect example. Blowing a diffuser in teh MP4-18 era was once a radical experiment with dubious outcome, teams either had it or not. Last year the innovation lay in how hot or cold it was, a relatively tiny nuance imperceptible to the outside observer. However, it was radical step and delivered 2 WCC and 2 WDC to Red Bull.

It may have been barely perceptible but I'd say it was just as radical as adopting turbos, or 6 wheels.

Good point. There is definitely some tech left however I don't see any of that coming to a sedan and most people won't relate to it, also, there's no 'big idea' like active suspension or gas turbines. F1 has reduced to minute details. Those small ideas can make a big difference, granted, as we all saw last year and, true to form, it was banned. So rather than other teams developing it further, no-one gets it and that seems to go against the reason of F1, in my opinion. As a purist, I know we'll never see a return to the 60's or 70's, but these restrictions leave little difference between the cars now, they may as well be stock cars with a badge.

[Cam]

WHen I said it would be Mclaren vs Ferrari lapping the whole field if the rules were more liberal. I should of said it would be Mclaren vs Ferrari with no field.

I think you doubt the will of humans to win. There will always be someone ready to take up the challenge to knock the top teams off. Look at Red Bull. They make watery drinks and yet they had a vision to be the best and they did it. I personally would rather see fewer cars and let them fight it out with max engineering, max speed. Maybe the bottom teams would join forces, come up with an ingenuous idea, win the championship, knock the 2 teams off and prove the F1 ethos still lives.

F1 should be about striving to succeed, against all the odds. Winning is the mark of a true champion and should be cherished and honored for critical understanding and effort, not for fluking a setup that you can't replicate.