Having read that Frank Dernie does make a lot of sense, and would bring driver error back into play alot more. Ditch telemetery too.
I'm a huge F1 fan, but......
Well really the simple test of his theory in my mind is that wet races are exciting and what's the difference? Less mechanical grip (OK, also less aero because they're going slower but I'm sure the ratio of mechanical:aero swings significantly towards aero)
Very good little article, well reasoned by someone with a lot more knowledge than any of us.
I'm quite suprised that the FIA don't commission a study to look into this - for example get one of the teams to run two identical cars but one with the wings tuned right down (eg much less downforce) and maybe the diffuser made less effective and super sticky tyres (so grippy/soft that they'd maybe only work for a few laps) and the other car with wings set to give loads of grip but with super hard tyres. Run them one in front of the other and see what the results are.
Obviously a bit simplistic but in theory it'd not be *that* difficult to get at least a reasonable idea of what would/wouldn't work.
I think that one of the problems is the teams are collectively becoming too good at working the regulations out and making the cars quick and reliable, in the so called good old days sometimes less than 5 cars finished the races and often laps behind the winner, if you want better races then the quick cars need to be at the back and drive through the problem is how to create that.
The most exiting races to watch recently have resulted from a random or unexpected Qualifying that has put cars out of order on the grid the difficulty is how to get to that situation and still end up with the fastest car and driver winning the championship.
One of the more recent suggestions was for a weight penalty that was only applied in qualifying resulting in the car with the most points carrying more fuel and therefore ending up further back.
The cars are still amazing pieces of engineering and the loads and speeds they generate are so far from everything else but it does need to get more entertaining to survive
The single lap qualifying - as mentioned in the article - would certainly stir things up most weekends
A World Superbike style 'Superpole' shoot-out would be fun
I'm quite suprised that the FIA don't commission a study to look into thisThey did/do. It was (is?) called the OWG (overtaking working group).
I liked single lap quali, but the teams didn't. The teams don't want racing, they want a scientific way of getting their car fastest and keeping it at the front of the race. For the same reason they will never accept success ballast, even just for quali. Only when the global TV audience has gone away completely will they listen.
Absurd irony at the mo is that the rule introduced to cause overtaking on track rather than in pits is now the catalyst for teams calling for mandatory additional pit stops - so they can overtake in the pitstops!
When the most interesting thing about a race is the pit stops, you know it's dull. Maybe there was more interest last year with the refuelling but then the commentery became 50% speculation on when/how often they'd pit, computers predicting which lap hamilton would come in on...yawn
I love the fact that no one bothers with KERS (which was was meant to perhaps help develop green tech for trickle down), yet it's become all about hypermiling.
Really, this sport is so irrelevant to the rest of the world now.
The teams don't want racing, they want a scientific way of getting their car fastest and keeping it at the front of the race
Very true. Unpredictable variables make for interesting sport, but they seem more excited by paralysis of analysis.
They need a gun at the front of the car to solve over-taking issues and the ability to squirt oil from behind to keeps things interesting (Red Bull seem to be using that tactic already anyway)
Interesting article below which does make sense but goes totally contrary to current accepted wisdom
Interesting article, but doesn't address the small matter of cars being unable to gain any ground once they're within 3 car lengths of the guy in front.
Besides, being more reliant on mechanical grip is more exciting to watch even if there is not more overtaking. I want to see cars on the limits of mechanical traction, the driver making corrections to pull them out of oversteer etc. Aero reliant cars just look like scalextric.
They did/do. It was (is?) called the OWG (overtaking working group).
Yeah, I really meant a proper physical study rather than the OWG which suggested split rear wings (DWG - Downwash Generator IIRC) which were never taken up because they looked crap...
Interesting article, but doesn't address the small matter of cars being unable to gain any ground once they're within 3 car lengths of the guy in front
Yeah, fair comment though my solution is just to allow a very specific and narrow ground effect tunnel on each side of the plank - increase the grip which will be a lot less reliant on clean air from in front.
KERS could have been good if it wasn't re-set every lap. If they could only use it 20 or 30 times in a race then it keeps both the driver in front and the one chasing guessing as to the best time to use it.
OWG was a far reaching and and proper physical study. It just wasn't nearly as far reaching and physical as the R&D that the teams do every day. Don't know what the budget for the OWG was, but I bet it wasn't in the hundreds of millions of dollars!
The problem with the OWG was they got their sums wrong*. Came up with the wrong solution to the problem that made the whole thing worse not better.
*the wind tunnel data that they were given had some fairly serious errors in it.
Interesting article, thanks clubber
This topic has been closed to new replies.