Making F1 Driving more challenging

[Richard]

Again, if the idea is to test the limit of human endurance and precision, rather than annoyance, speed is the challenge. And for a myriad regulatory reasons, current F1 machinery doesn't provide that challenge.

Except the cars go much much faster now than so called golden ages. I guess the reason Senna was tired was because he was battling to keep the car on track? It's not the absolute speed, but the balance of speed and traction.

Personally I like seeing the current cars squirm as they exit corners because the wheel torque exceeds traction. We could do with more of that. A little less downforce and we'll see the men sorted from the boys. Ideally I'd like weaker tyres and brakes that fade, but the tyre thing didn't work out too well last time.

As for banning telemetry and pit comms, that'll turn F1 into a dinosaur. A bit like that peculiar race series that mandated push rod valves. How quaint.

[bhall II]

What I mean by speed is pushing a car to its absolute limit rather than to a limit imposed by an arbitrarily enhanced need to save tires/fuel/PUs/etc. Making a car do all that it can possibly do, regardless of its construction, is the true challenge.

The Brabham BT49 is another example in the same vein as the MP4-17A. It had only 500bhp, but a hydropneumatic suspension, full ground effect downforce, and an illegal water-cooled braking system that lightened the car throughout a race. In other words, it had "driver aids" aplenty.

Here's a picture of three-time World Champion Nelson Piquet collapsing on the top step of the podium after "winning" the 1982 Brazilian Grand Prix in that car.


It was hot, too

Here's a video compilation of drivers fighting snap oversteer despite copious quantities of downforce and, often, proper F1 tires. Pushing a car is difficult.


Try to ignore the oddly dramatic soundtrack

Because the current rules impose a litany of restrictions too many to number, drivers nowadays are unable to push the cars to the limits of their capabilities. Banning telemetry, restricting radio messages, or whatever else F1's Confederacy of Dunces will conjure up, cannot change that.

Build a lightweight car with 750bhp, active suspension/aero, fully automatic gearbox, traction/stability control, roll it on the best tires money can buy, and you'd be hard pressed to find a driver capable of handling its limit, because those who could would likely have difficulty fitting their balls in the cockpit.

[Edax]

To come back to the OP's question. When it comes to radio I think regulation is pointless. It is no cooincidence that many great occupying armies were defeated by a couple of amateurs with a some weapons and a set of radio's. Very hard to control someone getting a message across.

There are two solutions:
- ban the radio
- allow everything

Frankly I think the best solution is not to bother about regulating it,... but, not to broadcast onboard radio anymore.

People introduced onboards to go with the live coverage because they probably thought it would be exciting to see what is going on inside of the helmet. Well as it shows now, it usually isn't. Not only it has left us wondering in how far the driver is in control of the vehicle but also, the most played fragments you find on the internet are fragments which are either damaging for the driver or the team. They are with no exception negative fragments.

I think we were better off before.

Look at the Tour de France for instance. All riders have headsets, they are constantly updated on position of other riders, road conditions, weather conditions etc. And since their bodies and bikes are laced with sensors it would't surprise me if they get some driving advice as well. But since it isn't broadcasted nobody knows what is going on, and we all applaude a rider for his great strategic insight to have launched a succesful escape at the point and time he did.

...... while probably the team's computer model showed a 34.5% of a victory, so they sent their driver for a run.

I guess ignorance is bliss.

[strad]

Manoah2u;
I will definitely agree with the over abundance of fanyboyism on this site.

[MercedesAMGSpy]

To come back to the OP's question. When it comes to radio I think regulation is pointless. It is no cooincidence that many great occupying armies were defeated by a couple of amateurs with a some weapons and a set of radio's. Very hard to control someone getting a message across.

There are two solutions:
- ban the radio
- allow everything

Frankly I think the best solution is not to bother about regulating it,... but, not to broadcast onboard radio anymore.

People introduced onboards to go with the live coverage because they probably thought it would be exciting to see what is going on inside of the helmet. Well as it shows now, it usually isn't. Not only it has left us wondering in how far the driver is in control of the vehicle but also, the most played fragments you find on the internet are fragments which are either damaging for the driver or the team. They are with no exception negative fragments.

I think we were better off before.

Look at the Tour de France for instance. All riders have headsets, they are constantly updated on position of other riders, road conditions, weather conditions etc. And since their bodies and bikes are laced with sensors it would't surprise me if they get some driving advice as well. But since it isn't broadcasted nobody knows what is going on, and we all applaude a rider for his great strategic insight to have launched a succesful escape at the point and time he did.

...... while probably the team's computer model showed a 34.5% of a victory, so they sent their driver for a run.

I guess ignorance is bliss.

Good comparison between cycling and F1, in cycling they have the same debate about the headsets and radio messages as in F1. The organization of the Tour de France want to ban it, because it kills pure cycling and the riders don't have to think and have to make their own decisions anymore.

That's why I like the new direction to ban some radio messages in F1. Nico Rosberg asking for driving advice was the ultimate low for me.

[langwadt]

To come back to the OP's question. When it comes to radio I think regulation is pointless. It is no cooincidence that many great occupying armies were defeated by a couple of amateurs with a some weapons and a set of radio's. Very hard to control someone getting a message across.

There are two solutions:
- ban the radio
- allow everything

Frankly I think the best solution is not to bother about regulating it,... but, not to broadcast onboard radio anymore.

People introduced onboards to go with the live coverage because they probably thought it would be exciting to see what is going on inside of the helmet. Well as it shows now, it usually isn't. Not only it has left us wondering in how far the driver is in control of the vehicle but also, the most played fragments you find on the internet are fragments which are either damaging for the driver or the team. They are with no exception negative fragments.

I think we were better off before.

Look at the Tour de France for instance. All riders have headsets, they are constantly updated on position of other riders, road conditions, weather conditions etc. And since their bodies and bikes are laced with sensors it would't surprise me if they get some driving advice as well. But since it isn't broadcasted nobody knows what is going on, and we all applaude a rider for his great strategic insight to have launched a succesful escape at the point and time he did.

...... while probably the team's computer model showed a 34.5% of a victory, so they sent their driver for a run.

I guess ignorance is bliss.

Good comparison between cycling and F1, in cycling they have the same debate about the headsets and radio messages as in F1. The organization of the Tour de France want to ban it, because it kills pure cycling and the riders don't have to think and have to make their own decisions anymore.

That's why I like the new direction to ban some radio messages in F1. Nico Rosberg asking for driving advice was the ultimate low for me.

in cycling no radio would make things much more unpredictable, because the riders would have a lot less info on what is going on, i.e. is the does the captain have a defect, is a team mate catching up to come help, has the peloton started catching up etc. with out radios they would have very little to base decisions on

It's ok with engineer figuring out what buttons to tweak and telling the driver so he can concentrate on racing, but getting turn by turn driving instructions is a bit too much. But it is really hard to police, just like the team order ban was

[langwadt]

What I mean by speed is pushing a car to its absolute limit rather than to a limit imposed by an arbitrarily enhanced need to save tires/fuel/PUs/etc. Making a car do all that it can possibly do, regardless of its construction, is the true challenge.

The Brabham BT49 is another example in the same vein as the MP4-17A. It had only 500bhp, but a hydropneumatic suspension, full ground effect downforce, and an illegal water-cooled braking system that lightened the car throughout a race. In other words, it had "driver aids" aplenty.

Here's a picture of three-time World Champion Nelson Piquet collapsing on the top step of the podium after "winning" the 1982 Brazilian Grand Prix in that car.

http://i.imgur.com/yyQh2Rd.jpg
It was hot, too

Here's a video compilation of drivers fighting snap oversteer despite copious quantities of downforce and, often, proper F1 tires. Pushing a car is difficult.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTpzIGaGi5k
Try to ignore the oddly dramatic soundtrack

Because the current rules impose a litany of restrictions too many to number, drivers nowadays are unable to push the cars to the limits of their capabilities. Banning telemetry, restricting radio messages, or whatever else F1's Confederacy of Dunces will conjure up, cannot change that.

I saw an interview with Magnussen and asked what was the biggest difference in F1 from what he has raced before was
two things:

How much of it was about managing the race, conserving tires, fuel and not more or less full on racing for the whole race

and how frustrating is to know that even when you feel the setup is perfect, and the lap was perfect, you are not going to be the fastest if you are not in the right car

[strad]

In my opinion after following for over 50 years is that it is supposed to be about getting the absolute most out of the equipment. One must remember that these are supposed to be the very best drivers in the world, not the best at conserving fuel etc..
I firmly feel that guys like Gilles or Ronnie, or most of the heros of old would be aghast at this method of driving.
I say give them the kind of hard tires that could last the whole race.
Give them massive horsepower. I remember when the racing community all looked to F1 as extracting the most horsepower per cubic inch. Part of their claim to glory was power to weight and cars that were always trying to get away from the driver and part of what made them the "best drivers in the world". There were only a handful of men capable of controlling them.
Now the control needed is that of controlling your fuel consumption and over soft tires that clutter the track with clag that limits passing opportunities.
I say bring back real cars with real drivers, not glorified video gamers. The cars and tracks are now safe enough to bring back real racing.

[Cold Fussion]

of three-time World Champion Nelson Piquet collapsing on the top step of the podium after "winning" the 1982 Brazilian Grand Prix in that car.

How much of this is really do with the difficultly of the cars to drive compared to the much lower fitness standards of drivers back then? Today you have drivers like Button who on his days off competes in triathlons, Alonso cycles up mountains like Alp D'Huez for fun, and presumably the rest of the field is similar in terms of fitness. I can't imagine turning the wheel at 3-5g every corner for 2 hours is all that easy.

[bhall II]

I saw an interview with Magnussen and asked what was the biggest difference in F1 from what he has raced before was
two things:

How much of it was about managing the race, conserving tires, fuel and not more or less full on racing for the whole race

and how frustrating is to know that even when you feel the setup is perfect, and the lap was perfect, you are not going to be the fastest if you are not in the right car

Magnussen isn't alone with his critique. Sebastian Vettel was very outspoken earlier this season about his contempt for the current formula:

"I would like to drive cars that are as fast as they can be — I need to feel as though I am taming a dragon or a beast.”

Similar comments came from Fernando Alonso as well as from former drivers like Niki Lauda and Alain Prost. Rules that limit the number of PUs available over the course of the season, as well as those that limit fuel consumption throughout the course of a race, are in direct opposition to consistently getting the absolute most out of a car.

Drivers today have to get the most out of the rules, not the cars, and the current rules are slow. (Fastest lap at Singapore was 5s slower than in 2008.)

How much of this is really do with the difficultly of the cars to drive compared to the much lower fitness standards of drivers back then? Today you have drivers like Button who on his days off competes in triathlons, Alonso cycles up mountains like Alp D'Huez for fun, and presumably the rest of the field is similar in terms of fitness. I can't imagine turning the wheel at 3-5g every corner for 2 hours is all that easy.

The main point I've tried to get across with stories of Senna's exhaustion at Imola in 1992 and Piquet's collapse at Brazil in 1982 is that I don't think driver aids are the culprit in today's problem. In each of those instances, the technology available to ease driver workload far exceeded what's currently available. Yet, no one ever questioned the challenge of pushing those cars.

The purely physiological aspect is an interesting one to consider, though, especially since we're apparently the Undisputed Kings of Endurance on Land. We can outrun any animal in terms of distance.

(Well, not me personally. I get winded walking to the refrigerator to get a beer. But, some folks hunt antelope and other animals by chasing them to the point of exhaustion.)

[Andres125sx]

I say bring back real cars with real drivers, not glorified video gamers. The cars and tracks are now safe enough to bring back real racing.

Monaco? Singapur? Montreal?

I think there are more than enough safe tracks to schedule a calendar with 20 GPs where they could be driving 6G corners safely, but there´re too much money involved, and to allow faster cars some unsafe tracks should be removed from the calendar. F1 is marketing and money.... for some wallets, do you see Bernie removing Monaco from the calendar to allow faster cars? I do not

[Richard]

Drivers nowadays are unable to push the cars to the limits of their capabilities. Banning telemetry, restricting radio messages, or whatever else F1's Confederacy of Dunces will conjure up, cannot change that.

Build a lightweight car with 750bhp, active suspension/aero, fully automatic gearbox, traction/stability control, roll it on the best tires money can buy, and you'd be hard pressed to find a driver capable of handling its limit, because those who could would likely have difficulty fitting their balls in the cockpit.

Indeed, size isn't everything. It's about control.

I'd not have traction control, we'd want to see the rear squirm as the power goes down, or the fronts lock up with late braking.

ps - Its interesting that your example of 'real tyres' had grooves to try to reduce the traction.

[Blanchimont]

Maybe the rules should mandate black suits and a minimum weight for the driver of let's say 80 kg?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYyq4lTvJNE[/youtube]

[Henne]

I think it rather simple...

No more then 3, two way, buttons on the steering wheel (activated, or not activated as the only option)
Simple wing design, 1 piece only
Wider body
Narrow front wheels, Fat rear wheels
Steel brakes
No power steering
No pit to car communication (They can user Radio to communicatie, just no car telemetry, they can download this when the car comes in)
no car to pit communication (They can user Radio to communicatie, just no car telemetry, they can download this when the car comes in)
Engine unfreeze after midway point of the season

[bdr529]

Maybe the rules should mandate black suits and a minimum weight for the driver of let's say 80 kg?

]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYyq4lTvJNE

Come on give old Nigel a break it was 100 °F that day