THIS is what F1 cars should SOUND and RUN like!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr5367NH1F4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBxw4whvBiA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr5367NH1F4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBxw4whvBiA
F1 - 2015 Belgian Grand Prix
- Thread starter gofast182
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
Bringing back refueling will save money on the wheel hub designs and arguably increase safety, the wheel-gun operators will have more time to ensure the wheel-nuts are tight while waiting for the fuel to go in.
The teams voted against bringing back refueling for cost and safety issues. We don't see that many unsafe wheel changes, despite doing it in less than 3 seconds. Fire is a real concern.
I can't find the article I read, but passing is up since the refueling ban. If you recall, it was standard practice to not push for a pass because they could make the pass in pit lane. No thanks.
F1 is the pinnacle of racing. The solution isn't an engine from 10 years ago. If I was in charge, the first thing I'd do is remove the fuel flow restrictions, but keep the fuel load limit. Maybe give the teams an extra 10 liters of fuel. The engines would rev higher, and it might open up more passing opportunities.
Bringing back refueling will save money on the wheel hub designs and arguably increase safety, the wheel-gun operators will have more time to ensure the wheel-nuts are tight while waiting for the fuel to go in.
The teams voted against bringing back refueling for cost and safety issues. We don't see that many unsafe wheel changes, despite doing it in less than 3 seconds. Fire is a real concern.
I can't find the article I read, but passing is up since the refueling ban. If you recall, it was standard practice to not push for a pass because they could make the pass in pit lane. No thanks.
F1 is the pinnacle of racing. The solution isn't an engine from 10 years ago. If I was in charge, the first thing I'd do is remove the fuel flow restrictions, but keep the fuel load limit. Maybe give the teams an extra 10 liters of fuel. The engines would rev higher, and it might open up more passing opportunities.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Instead of wasting money and engineering effort on silly battery powered drive systems, "DRS Zones", and all of this other nonsense, build bigger runoff areas.
I am curious to how it goes. Nonetheless, Formula 1 has always been a science fair. As for a forced direction science fair, that's another matter.
Instead of wasting money and engineering effort on silly battery powered drive systems, "DRS Zones", and all of this other nonsense, build bigger runoff areas.
I am curious to how it goes. Nonetheless, Formula 1 has always been a science fair. As for a forced direction science fair, that's another matter.
Originally Posted By: whip
The solution isn't an engine from 10 years ago.
Then give them a "modern engine" that can at least produce the lap times from 10 years ago. F1 needs to understand something all of it's fans already know. Slower = backwards. Regardless of what kind of over complicated package they try to wrap it in, and sell it as.
The solution isn't an engine from 10 years ago.
Then give them a "modern engine" that can at least produce the lap times from 10 years ago. F1 needs to understand something all of it's fans already know. Slower = backwards. Regardless of what kind of over complicated package they try to wrap it in, and sell it as.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: whip
The solution isn't an engine from 10 years ago.
Then give them a "modern engine" that can at least produce the lap times from 10 years ago. F1 needs to understand something all of it's fans already know. Slower = backwards. Regardless of the over complicated package they try to wrap it in, and sell it as.
They can't because of safety issues. They have to slow the cars down. If they let the teams run without restrictions, like many want, F1 will turn into a blood sport. Do you want to go back to when it was common for drivers to die?
Look at NASCAR and the big airborn wrecks they're having. It's only a matter of time before a driver or fan gets killed, and then drastic action will happen. F1 is trying to stay ahead of the curve, not chase it like NASCAR.
Originally Posted By: whip
The solution isn't an engine from 10 years ago.
Then give them a "modern engine" that can at least produce the lap times from 10 years ago. F1 needs to understand something all of it's fans already know. Slower = backwards. Regardless of the over complicated package they try to wrap it in, and sell it as.
They can't because of safety issues. They have to slow the cars down. If they let the teams run without restrictions, like many want, F1 will turn into a blood sport. Do you want to go back to when it was common for drivers to die?
Look at NASCAR and the big airborn wrecks they're having. It's only a matter of time before a driver or fan gets killed, and then drastic action will happen. F1 is trying to stay ahead of the curve, not chase it like NASCAR.
Originally Posted By: whip
They have to slow the cars down. If they let the teams run without restrictions, like many want, F1 will turn into a blood sport. Do you want to go back to when it was common for drivers to die?
That's total nonsense that every statistic in F1 proves wrong over the last 20 years. Michael Schumacher, as well as several other drivers like Massa, Barrichello, Button, and many others, lived through the fastest years in the sport. There has been only one death in F1 since Senna. And Bianchi's death had nothing what so ever to do with speed, and everything to do with a poorly run race. Those cars had no business on that track in that condition. The safety measures in F1 have always remained ahead of the performance curve. Poor track designs and conditions have killed far more drivers than speed has.
They have to slow the cars down. If they let the teams run without restrictions, like many want, F1 will turn into a blood sport. Do you want to go back to when it was common for drivers to die?
That's total nonsense that every statistic in F1 proves wrong over the last 20 years. Michael Schumacher, as well as several other drivers like Massa, Barrichello, Button, and many others, lived through the fastest years in the sport. There has been only one death in F1 since Senna. And Bianchi's death had nothing what so ever to do with speed, and everything to do with a poorly run race. Those cars had no business on that track in that condition. The safety measures in F1 have always remained ahead of the performance curve. Poor track designs and conditions have killed far more drivers than speed has.
Originally Posted By: whip
Look at NASCAR and the big airborn wrecks they're having. It's only a matter of time before a driver or fan gets killed, and then drastic action will happen.
F1 cars don't "fly", or run on high speed ovals. The only time they get close to 200+ MPH, is for a couple of seconds at the end of long straights. One has nothing to do with the other.
Look at NASCAR and the big airborn wrecks they're having. It's only a matter of time before a driver or fan gets killed, and then drastic action will happen.
F1 cars don't "fly", or run on high speed ovals. The only time they get close to 200+ MPH, is for a couple of seconds at the end of long straights. One has nothing to do with the other.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: whip
They have to slow the cars down. If they let the teams run without restrictions, like many want, F1 will turn into a blood sport. Do you want to go back to when it was common for drivers to die?
That's total nonsense that every statistic in F1 proves wrong over the last 20 years. Michael Schumacher, as well as several other drivers like Massa, Barrichello, Button, and many others, lived through the fastest years in the sport. There has been only one death in F1 since Senna.
So the safety experts, teams and drivers are wrong?
How fast should the cars be allowed to go before they need slowed down? What speed is "safe"?
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: whip
Look at NASCAR and the big airborn wrecks they're having. It's only a matter of time before a driver or fan gets killed, and then drastic action will happen.
F1 cars don't "fly", or run on high speed ovals. The only time they get close to 200+ MPH, is for a couple of seconds at the end of long straights. One has nothing to do with the other.
Safety is related to speed. The higher the speed, the higher the risk. The comparision was also made to point out the difference between NASCAR and F1 when it comes to safety. NASCAR has always been reactive and against change. F1 has tried to stay in front of the curve. I prefer F1's method of preventing them before they happen.
Originally Posted By: whip
They have to slow the cars down. If they let the teams run without restrictions, like many want, F1 will turn into a blood sport. Do you want to go back to when it was common for drivers to die?
That's total nonsense that every statistic in F1 proves wrong over the last 20 years. Michael Schumacher, as well as several other drivers like Massa, Barrichello, Button, and many others, lived through the fastest years in the sport. There has been only one death in F1 since Senna.
So the safety experts, teams and drivers are wrong?
How fast should the cars be allowed to go before they need slowed down? What speed is "safe"?
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: whip
Look at NASCAR and the big airborn wrecks they're having. It's only a matter of time before a driver or fan gets killed, and then drastic action will happen.
F1 cars don't "fly", or run on high speed ovals. The only time they get close to 200+ MPH, is for a couple of seconds at the end of long straights. One has nothing to do with the other.
Safety is related to speed. The higher the speed, the higher the risk. The comparision was also made to point out the difference between NASCAR and F1 when it comes to safety. NASCAR has always been reactive and against change. F1 has tried to stay in front of the curve. I prefer F1's method of preventing them before they happen.
Originally Posted By: whip
Safety is related to speed. The higher the speed, the higher the risk. The comparision was also made to point out the difference between NASCAR and F1 when it comes to safety. NASCAR has always been reactive and against change. F1 has tried to stay in front of the curve. I prefer F1's method of preventing them before they happen.
Simply NOT TRUE, regardless of how many times you say it. Look at Indy and Formula 1. Back in the 50's and 60's Indy cars were anywhere from 50 to 70 MPH slower than they are today. Guys died left and right at Indy almost every year. Same with F1. Back when Jackie Stewart, Nicki Lauda, and James Hunt drove, F1 cars were no where near as fast as they were 10 years ago during the Schumacher era, with the V-10's of the new millennium. Back then guys got killed every year. Sometimes every race. Bandini, Cervet, Revson, Rindt, Williamson, Price. The list is all but endless. Tracks were terrible, and car designs were rolling coffins. Carbon Fiber Monocoque's didn't exist.
NASCAR wasn't much different in those days. Again, the cars were slower, and the fatality rate in accidents was much higher. Cars had a roll bar, and that was about it. No protective seats. No full face helmets. No HANS Devices. Earnhardt would be alive today if he would have been wearing one. Now they all have to. Speed didn't kill Earnhardt. Poor equipment, or the outright lack of it did.
In any racing venue you want to look at, the speeds have increased tremendously, while driver fatalities have all but disappeared. Any attempt to draw a parallel line between the 2 will be anything but parallel.
Safety is related to speed. The higher the speed, the higher the risk. The comparision was also made to point out the difference between NASCAR and F1 when it comes to safety. NASCAR has always been reactive and against change. F1 has tried to stay in front of the curve. I prefer F1's method of preventing them before they happen.
Simply NOT TRUE, regardless of how many times you say it. Look at Indy and Formula 1. Back in the 50's and 60's Indy cars were anywhere from 50 to 70 MPH slower than they are today. Guys died left and right at Indy almost every year. Same with F1. Back when Jackie Stewart, Nicki Lauda, and James Hunt drove, F1 cars were no where near as fast as they were 10 years ago during the Schumacher era, with the V-10's of the new millennium. Back then guys got killed every year. Sometimes every race. Bandini, Cervet, Revson, Rindt, Williamson, Price. The list is all but endless. Tracks were terrible, and car designs were rolling coffins. Carbon Fiber Monocoque's didn't exist.
NASCAR wasn't much different in those days. Again, the cars were slower, and the fatality rate in accidents was much higher. Cars had a roll bar, and that was about it. No protective seats. No full face helmets. No HANS Devices. Earnhardt would be alive today if he would have been wearing one. Now they all have to. Speed didn't kill Earnhardt. Poor equipment, or the outright lack of it did.
In any racing venue you want to look at, the speeds have increased tremendously, while driver fatalities have all but disappeared. Any attempt to draw a parallel line between the 2 will be anything but parallel.
A lot of talk about engines, but the lack of passing is from the aero packages more than anything else. This has been the case for 20+ years. Pit stops were the passing lane for a couple decades, now it's the stupid DRS zone. It doesn't matter if you're using V10's, V8's, or hybrid V6's. If you can't pass because the air is so "dirty" from all the aero then engines become irrelevant.
Stick with the hybrid units, they can be reliable and powerful (look at WEC for examples, especially the Porsche V-4 hybrid). But let them crank up the power by allowing higher fuel flow. Right now the engines are limited to 15k rpm but none can rev that high because the fuel flow is too low. Let them get enough fuel to at least reach 15k and maybe go to the 18k the V-8's were running with KERS. Then get rid of those gawd awful front wings that are the main deterrent for passing and go back to a single element wing. Let the cars return to a 2000mm wide track and allow ground effect cars like the late 70's to early 80's where some cars didn't even run front wings! Less reliance on wings for downforce means following close to another car doesn't cause the car to get unsettled.
Stick with the hybrid units, they can be reliable and powerful (look at WEC for examples, especially the Porsche V-4 hybrid). But let them crank up the power by allowing higher fuel flow. Right now the engines are limited to 15k rpm but none can rev that high because the fuel flow is too low. Let them get enough fuel to at least reach 15k and maybe go to the 18k the V-8's were running with KERS. Then get rid of those gawd awful front wings that are the main deterrent for passing and go back to a single element wing. Let the cars return to a 2000mm wide track and allow ground effect cars like the late 70's to early 80's where some cars didn't even run front wings! Less reliance on wings for downforce means following close to another car doesn't cause the car to get unsettled.
Originally Posted By: whip
How fast should the cars be allowed to go before they need slowed down? What speed is "safe"?
I have to agree that the speed in F1 is not an issue right now in the least. No, we don't want to go back to when we had drivers commonly dying. But, the biggest improvement in safety had nothing to do with reducing speed. Who are the F1 drivers and constructors that are asking for slower cars? NASCAR and Indy's safety issues aren't speed related, per se, either. Proper equipment, strong driver discipline, and track design are the things that have saved lives. An unprotected driver crashing into a solid wall in a vehicle with no crumple zones will die just as certainly at 100 mph as he will at 200 mph. That's basic collision analysis and physics.
billt460: In mentioning the sound, of today's cars, that reminds me of something I said about the Formula 1 2014 game when it was released. I said, "It's fortunate that they finally got the sound right. Unfortunately, they finally got the sound right."
How fast should the cars be allowed to go before they need slowed down? What speed is "safe"?
I have to agree that the speed in F1 is not an issue right now in the least. No, we don't want to go back to when we had drivers commonly dying. But, the biggest improvement in safety had nothing to do with reducing speed. Who are the F1 drivers and constructors that are asking for slower cars? NASCAR and Indy's safety issues aren't speed related, per se, either. Proper equipment, strong driver discipline, and track design are the things that have saved lives. An unprotected driver crashing into a solid wall in a vehicle with no crumple zones will die just as certainly at 100 mph as he will at 200 mph. That's basic collision analysis and physics.
billt460: In mentioning the sound, of today's cars, that reminds me of something I said about the Formula 1 2014 game when it was released. I said, "It's fortunate that they finally got the sound right. Unfortunately, they finally got the sound right."
Man, they sure had a lot of wrecks for a practice session today. These guys have lost their touch sitting around for 3 weeks.
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
Originally Posted By: Garak
bdcardinal: I wonder about refueling. Even in F1, not everyone is of the same mind, for sure. I suppose I could live with it, as long as it doesn't unfairly penalize smaller teams.
The previous refueling rigs were all control units supplied by Intertechnique, they make fueling rigs for aircraft. They flowed something in the range of 13L a second with a pressurized system. They could switch to the setup used by IndyCar, V8 Supercar, Super GT, and DTM that are gravity fed. There are teams in those series with small budgets and they all have the equipment.
The only real oops issue with IndyCar this year was Graham Rahal driving out of his stall at Fontana with the buckeye still attached, wasn't his fault since the refueller reinserted and it did not trip the auto neutral feature.
Don't forget the oops when Verstappens car caught fire and Benetton were found to have removed the filter in order to speed up fuelling and thus reduce pit stop times.
Originally Posted By: Garak
bdcardinal: I wonder about refueling. Even in F1, not everyone is of the same mind, for sure. I suppose I could live with it, as long as it doesn't unfairly penalize smaller teams.
The previous refueling rigs were all control units supplied by Intertechnique, they make fueling rigs for aircraft. They flowed something in the range of 13L a second with a pressurized system. They could switch to the setup used by IndyCar, V8 Supercar, Super GT, and DTM that are gravity fed. There are teams in those series with small budgets and they all have the equipment.
The only real oops issue with IndyCar this year was Graham Rahal driving out of his stall at Fontana with the buckeye still attached, wasn't his fault since the refueller reinserted and it did not trip the auto neutral feature.
Don't forget the oops when Verstappens car caught fire and Benetton were found to have removed the filter in order to speed up fuelling and thus reduce pit stop times.
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
Don't forget the oops when Verstappens car caught fire and Benetton were found to have removed the filter in order to speed up fuelling and thus reduce pit stop times.
I remember when that happened, I even have Steve Matchett's book.
Don't forget the oops when Verstappens car caught fire and Benetton were found to have removed the filter in order to speed up fuelling and thus reduce pit stop times.
I remember when that happened, I even have Steve Matchett's book.
Yep, it's all about the ground effects. Couple that with tires that don't leave as much "clag" on the track and not only will drivers follow closer, they'll attempt many more overtaking moves.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Man, they sure had a lot of wrecks for a practice session today.
Pastor was certainly on his usual form during FP1. Coulthard had a few zingers for him during qualifying, one notable one about how his sponsor should be re-initialed to be "Please Do Not Crash" or something to that effect.
Man, they sure had a lot of wrecks for a practice session today.
Pastor was certainly on his usual form during FP1. Coulthard had a few zingers for him during qualifying, one notable one about how his sponsor should be re-initialed to be "Please Do Not Crash" or something to that effect.
Raikkonen's car sounded like a coffee can full of rocks when it let go. A few people at Ferrari won't be getting any sleep tonight.
Yep, that was no good. He showed some fine professionalism there, though, in ensuring he got off the track as quickly as possible without hampering everyone else.
On another note, McLaren changing multiple engines this weekend to only get one set of penalties per car is exactly why it wasn't all that stupid to be able to be penalized, say, 75 grid places, which would be taken across multiple weekends, or time penalties in addition to grid penalties. Ron Dennis is laughing right now, if he can.
On another note, McLaren changing multiple engines this weekend to only get one set of penalties per car is exactly why it wasn't all that stupid to be able to be penalized, say, 75 grid places, which would be taken across multiple weekends, or time penalties in addition to grid penalties. Ron Dennis is laughing right now, if he can.
F1 is not just about speed. Otherwise you'd just watch qualifying and call it a day as the fastest car is proven.
The main goal isnt to go as fast as possible. It's to provide entertainment. Every post race interview refers to the putting on a show and thanking the fans not the purity of racing.
The new rules in place are putting more things more in the hands of the driver. Otherwise if pure speed and safety were the goals theyd allow back all the computer and electronic controls back in as well as all the radio guidance.
Its a for profit show first and foremost folks don't forget.
The main goal isnt to go as fast as possible. It's to provide entertainment. Every post race interview refers to the putting on a show and thanking the fans not the purity of racing.
The new rules in place are putting more things more in the hands of the driver. Otherwise if pure speed and safety were the goals theyd allow back all the computer and electronic controls back in as well as all the radio guidance.
Its a for profit show first and foremost folks don't forget.
Originally Posted By: raytseng
The main goal isnt to go as fast as possible.
You won't win a race any other way.
The main goal isnt to go as fast as possible.
You won't win a race any other way.
- Status
Similar threads
