Agreed, you have some good points there Dave.
The main reason behind some interesting races this year has been
weather and the tyre war. Which are both good for F1.
What they really need to do is to reduce high speed cornering by
chopping wings further, and a return to slicks which are unaffected by
"dirty air". But I guess I'm preaching to the converted anyway.
Rafe Mc
-DK
> Rafe Mc
> Therefore circuits that wish to host F1 events must have areas of the
> course redesigned to limit the cornering speeds.
Much of it is post-Senna, 1994: IIRC the concensus there
is that he was cornering fast in a ground-effects car
when it bottomed, and the wall was simply far too close
for that cornering speed. Okay, that was caused by
cold tyres and marginal ride height, but the principle
is that *any* malfunction or unexpected piece of debris
in the track has the potential to launch you into the
nearest solid bit of scenery.
Jonny
Interestingly (getting this from the same source) there was an
advisory board investigating the lack of on-track overtaking and they
found that if you increased grip by 10%, reduced downforce by 25%, and
increased drag by 10%, there would be more overtaking opportunities.
The ideas were never implemented because the increase in grip would
have resulted in more dangerous corners/chicanes.
Getting back to the CART comparison, I'll have to see if I can dig up
some info on G's the drivers/cars experience at various road courses.
I hadn't given much thought to the lateral G factor before you brought
it up.
Jason
> > >> It's not possible to corner under the loads that the F1 cars are/were
> > >> capable of generating. CART may be "faster" but speed means nothing
> > >> in this context if it's drag racing, it's lateral forces that are the
> > >> problem, and F1 cars made more lateral G than CART cars as far as I
> > >> remember, and that is the problem. CART don't have to adapt the
> > >> circuits because CART cars aren't capable of cornering at the speeds
> > >> of an F1 car. Top speed and acceleration are not part of the equation
> > >> in this argument.
> > > I assume you mean the >human body< isn't capable of tolerating
> > > said lateral G's (remember the canceled CART race at Texas this
> > > year?)...
> > > JD
> > I'll clarify: The lateral Gs have only been an issue at oval tracks for
> > CART as far as I'm aware. A comment was raised that CART has not needed
> > to modify the "road courses" it runs on, my counter argument is that
> > Formula 1 cars are capable of cornering on "road courses" with the kind
> > of lateral Gs that would be only otherwise be seen on an *oval* track in a
> > CART race. This is only true of certain turns on particular tracks, but
> > it is the reason for all the "mickey mouse" chicanes on the "classic" F1
> > circuits, and part of the design consideration of a modern circuit such as
> > Sepang. CART cars are incapable of pulling the same lateral G's on any of
> > the existing turns on the road and street courses they run at.
> > Therefore circuits that wish to host F1 events must have areas of the
> > course redesigned to limit the cornering speeds.
> > Hope that's cleared my position :)
> > cheers
> > John
> Much of it is post-Senna, 1994: IIRC the concensus there
> is that he was cornering fast in a ground-effects car
> when it bottomed, and the wall was simply far too close
> for that cornering speed. Okay, that was caused by
> cold tyres and marginal ride height, but the principle
> is that *any* malfunction or unexpected piece of debris
> in the track has the potential to launch you into the
> nearest solid bit of scenery.
> Jonny
John
cheers
John
Jonny
John
> -DK
> [snip]
> > What they really need to do is to reduce high speed cornering by
> > chopping wings further, and a return to slicks which are
unaffected by
> > "dirty air". But I guess I'm preaching to the converted anyway.
> > Rafe Mc
Next year's British Grand Prix will go ahead as planned at Silverstone
despite the recent furore over its traffic problems, the sport's
governing body the FIA has confirmed at its World Council meeting at
Monte Carlo today (Friday).
Autosport 12/14/01
Octagon are spending 10 million quid on an additional two lane road up the
the M1. There's an article in this weeks Motorsport News (UK) and I
daresay there'll be plenty about it on the web somewhere.
cheers
John
CART may be more boring than F1 if you consider Ovals, but Detroit,
Portland, Mid-Ohio, Cleveland, Toronto, Vancouver are a boon, a feast, a
party, a celebration and a spiritual journey for the eyes and the heart of a
racer. And I'm a serious F1 fan, just to make that clear.
Achim
> > Funny, I don't see CART dumbing down any of their road courses, and
> > their cars are faster (and apparently safer). It's certainly not due
> > to a lack of safety concern (see Texas and Laguna Seca).
> It's not possible to corner under the loads that the F1 cars are/were
> capable of generating. CART may be "faster" but speed means nothing in
> this context if it's drag racing, it's lateral forces that are the
> problem, and F1 cars made more lateral G than CART cars as far as I
> remember, and that is the problem. CART don't have to adapt the circuits
> because CART cars aren't capable of cornering at the speeds of an F1 car.
> Top speed and acceleration are not part of the equation in this argument.
> > With the exception of the races at Suzuki and Malaysia, modern F1 is
> > the most boring form of motorsport in the world.
> No, CART is much more tedious. I fell asleep watching the UK Rockingham
> "race" and I switched off the Molson Canadian as a disgraceful demolition
> derby. See, I can troll too :P
> > --Jason
> Cheers
> John
we all know why F1 circuits get dumbed down. And it all sounds logical too.
But take a step back and consider this: apart from safety considerations,
which are of course fully justified and should be our first and foremost
concern, but we build cars that can't drive on real racetracks anymore. We
build F1 cars that in a few generations <sarcasm on> will need rails because
the centrifugal forces are so high that asphalt grip just isn't high enough
anymore <sarcasm off>.
What I'm trying to say is, instead of building cars that can race on
interesting realistic tracks, we emphasize a very few core characteristics
in car technology so much that the cars have nothing to do with real life
cars anymore, that they can't race on real life tracks anymore, and that
real people almost can't control them anymore. Looking at this ironically,
my rail analogy would be the logical next step.
Let's just jettison some of this underfloor aerodynamic stuff, raise the
ride height to give the cars enough suspension travel to cope with something
a little higher than fly droppings, and we'll not only see those cars back
at Brands Hatch (after we've given BH state of the art safety measures),
we'll also see a lot more passing, and a lot more exciting races. And it
won't be more dangerous either, because the cars will be controllable by
humans.
Achim
> >> As for circuits having to be dumbed down, it's because the cars are so
> >> fast these days that it's beyond the physical capabilities of a human
> >> being to drive them with a suitable level of risk at the limit
otherwise.
> >Funny, I don't see CART dumbing down any of their road courses, and
> >their cars are faster (and apparently safer). It's certainly not due
> >to a lack of safety concern (see Texas and Laguna Seca).
> No CART isn't "dumbing down" their road courses and subsequently is
> not as safe as F1. Some of the tracks wouldn't even be allowed for
> testing as per FIA standards.
> Case in point; a thing like Gidley's crash at Road America, smacking
> into a concrete bridge foundation sideways at 250 km/h isn't something
> that would be likely to happen in F1. You should've heard the
> TV-commentators here in Europe totally thrashing the safety level of
> US events after that incident...
> Laguna Seca... did have a fatality in CART just two years ago, now
> didn't it? Besides, I don't know how good it would be for F1's
> anyways. I think it is too narrow and not enough straights for those
> cars to stretch out. Going from this year's CART event there I'm all
> the more certain of it. It would be like Hungaroring, but with a
> corkscrew.
> >With the exception of the races at Suzuki and Malaysia, modern F1 is
> >the most boring form of motorsport in the world.
> Well, at least the most yellow I see is on the Jordan fan section.
> <rolls eyes>
F1 should build cars to race on tracks instead of tracks converting to suit
the cars. When a car can't race a track anymore then the car is not right.
Not the circuit.
> we all know why F1 circuits get dumbed down. And it all sounds logical
too.
> But take a step back and consider this: apart from safety considerations,
> which are of course fully justified and should be our first and foremost
> concern, but we build cars that can't drive on real racetracks anymore. We
> build F1 cars that in a few generations <sarcasm on> will need rails
because
> the centrifugal forces are so high that asphalt grip just isn't high
enough
> anymore <sarcasm off>.
> What I'm trying to say is, instead of building cars that can race on
> interesting realistic tracks, we emphasize a very few core characteristics
> in car technology so much that the cars have nothing to do with real life
> cars anymore, that they can't race on real life tracks anymore, and that
> real people almost can't control them anymore. Looking at this ironically,
> my rail analogy would be the logical next step.
> Let's just jettison some of this underfloor aerodynamic stuff, raise the
> ride height to give the cars enough suspension travel to cope with
something
> a little higher than fly droppings, and we'll not only see those cars back
> at Brands Hatch (after we've given BH state of the art safety measures),
> we'll also see a lot more passing, and a lot more exciting races. And it
> won't be more dangerous either, because the cars will be controllable by
> humans.
> Achim
> > >> As for circuits having to be dumbed down, it's because the cars are
so
> > >> fast these days that it's beyond the physical capabilities of a human
> > >> being to drive them with a suitable level of risk at the limit
> otherwise.
> > >Funny, I don't see CART dumbing down any of their road courses, and
> > >their cars are faster (and apparently safer). It's certainly not due
> > >to a lack of safety concern (see Texas and Laguna Seca).
> > No CART isn't "dumbing down" their road courses and subsequently is
> > not as safe as F1. Some of the tracks wouldn't even be allowed for
> > testing as per FIA standards.
> > Case in point; a thing like Gidley's crash at Road America, smacking
> > into a concrete bridge foundation sideways at 250 km/h isn't something
> > that would be likely to happen in F1. You should've heard the
> > TV-commentators here in Europe totally thrashing the safety level of
> > US events after that incident...
> > Laguna Seca... did have a fatality in CART just two years ago, now
> > didn't it? Besides, I don't know how good it would be for F1's
> > anyways. I think it is too narrow and not enough straights for those
> > cars to stretch out. Going from this year's CART event there I'm all
> > the more certain of it. It would be like Hungaroring, but with a
> > corkscrew.
> > >With the exception of the races at Suzuki and Malaysia, modern F1 is
> > >the most boring form of motorsport in the world.
> > Well, at least the most yellow I see is on the Jordan fan section.
> > <rolls eyes>
>we all know why F1 circuits get dumbed down. And it all sounds logical too.
>But take a step back and consider this: apart from safety considerations,
>which are of course fully justified and should be our first and foremost
>concern, but we build cars that can't drive on real racetracks anymore. We
>build F1 cars that in a few generations <sarcasm on> will need rails because
>the centrifugal forces are so high that asphalt grip just isn't high enough
>anymore <sarcasm off>.
>What I'm trying to say is, instead of building cars that can race on
>interesting realistic tracks, we emphasize a very few core characteristics
>in car technology so much that the cars have nothing to do with real life
>cars anymore, that they can't race on real life tracks anymore, and that
>real people almost can't control them anymore. Looking at this ironically,
>my rail analogy would be the logical next step.
>Let's just jettison some of this underfloor aerodynamic stuff, raise the
>ride height to give the cars enough suspension travel to cope with something
>a little higher than fly droppings, and we'll not only see those cars back
>at Brands Hatch (after we've given BH state of the art safety measures),
>we'll also see a lot more passing, and a lot more exciting races. And it
>won't be more dangerous either, because the cars will be controllable by
>humans.
The problems with doing a radical design departure like you are
suggesting are 1) Aerodynamics is effective and have come about
through the evolution of a free formula and a free formula(as far as
possible) is what Formula 1 is supposed to be about. Wings and planks
makes it easier to regulate the aero aids and if wings would be banned
the makers would put all their efforts into using the body shape to
create downforce one way or another. Something moving through the air
at 300km/h+ is bound to be aerodynamic no matter what. Imagine the
bickering of what constitutes a wing and what don't... The other
option would be to regulate the entire body shell, and people whine
about that they all look the same now already? 2) Severely removing
all aero, assuming it can be done, would basically make the cars
oversized Formula Fords. They would lose their glory as the fastests
racecars on the planet to for example ...just about any! Even
supertourers and GT cars use more downforce than people think with the
spoiler, front diffuser and undertray in the GT cars. To someone a
little less laid to the nostalgic side of things would think that they
"wussified" F1. That's not in anyone's interests.
The point I'm trying to make, everyone has an "obvious" solution(often
tied to their favourite nostalgic timeperiod) to the problems at hand,
no aero, more aero, bring back ground effect, bring back turbos, ban
turbos, no refuelling, bring back refuelling, less engine, more
engine, fat slicks, no slicks, yadda yadda... et.c., et.c. ad
infinitum. As always, there are no easy answers.
