A modest proposal to bring racing back to F1

It is obvious that grooving the tires to reduce traction is a complete failure in restoring competitive racing to F1. It is also obvious the real problem is downforce. Less downforce, more driver skill required, longer braking zones for passing. So... 1. Keep the flat bottom rules. 2. Add "No part of the body work or any aerodynamic device shall exceed 36 inches in width or height. No part of the suspension or anything else extending outside these dimensions shall create downforce. This shall be enforced through wind tunnel testing of the cars with and without all parts extending past the 36 inch limit." I'd like to see thousands of pounds of downforce with _that_. As a bonus the cars would have a more classic look, especially if there was an appropriate restriction on total width. Have at me. bob

Simpler solution: 1. pay drivers a modest retainer 2. give bonuses only on points result Alan

Let me one-up you: 1. Go back to steel brakes to make the braking zones longer 2. Add more underbody downforce and less 'over-the-wing' downforce 3. Go back to slicks. Randy >Simpler solution: >1. pay drivers a modest retainer >2. give bonuses only on points result >Alan Randy Magruder http://members.home.com/rmagruder

6 steps to better a better F1.. 1. Slicks: Safer, more grip, more fun. 2. No carbon brakes: Cars have to start stopping sooner, more braking duels. 3. Reduce wing widths 30%: Less dependance on aero, closer drafting. 4. Extend flat bottoms to back of rear tires: Minimizes diffuser, less dn force, better tow. 5. Bodywork protrusions (ie:turning veins) not visible from the bottom of the car: Gets rid of ugly, impractical extraenious bits that fall off, reduces aero effects. 6. Raise min. height to 9cm (3.5"): Gets out of gravel traps easier, less dependance on stable ground effect platform, and makes more compliant suspension possible. =rez=

>1. Go back to steel brakes to make the braking zones longer Williams used steel brakes on Zanardi's car in practice at, I think, Magny Cours and they've also tested them extensively - almost no difference compared to carbon fibre according to their results. A switch back to steel would probably make little difference. The concern there is that when the car lifts and the downforce is gone it's utterly gone - dramatic loss of grip and control. I totally agree with that - I'd have turbos back too, and no refuelling nonsense. I always liked that someone could turn up the boost to get close and/or have a go, keeps things interesting. Cheers! John

>>1. Go back to steel brakes to make the braking zones longer >Williams used steel brakes on Zanardi's car in practice at, I think, >Magny Cours and they've also tested them extensively - almost no >difference compared to carbon fibre according to their results. There *is* a difference, and yes, I've heard from more than one source in the racing community that steel brakes would, over the course of a race, allow more passing/outbraking attempts. That's why they have gravel traps :). Are the cars any easier to drive for their downforce NOW? Randy Randy Magruder http://members.home.com/rmagruder

Alan - The problem is that the ***y cars: A. Are too hard to pass. B. Are too technology, rather than driver, dependent. Better motors or better downforce/drag ratios are simply used to dial in _more_ downforce (note that top speeds are quite equal and have been relatively unchanged for several years), drastically reducing any advantage of driver skill in braking/cornering/accelerating. Your solution addresses neither. Randy - steel brakes are perfectly capable of locking the wheels for the entire race. Consistency of feel with carbon-carbon may make a minor difference, but nowhere near enough. Slicks are pretty irrelevent, as grooved tires appear little different. Downforce (total) is the problem, not the solution. So, I ask again, what about 36X36? It would make a huge difference as compared to any of the above sugestions.

Quoted text (18 lines)

>Let me one-up you: >1. Go back to steel brakes to make the braking zones longer >2. Add more underbody downforce and less 'over-the-wing' downforce >3. Go back to slicks. >Randy >>Simpler solution: >>1. pay drivers a modest retainer >>2. give bonuses only on points result >>Alan >Randy Magruder >[link lost in import]

Randy... With regard to Item 1 on your list, I'd like to refer you to an article on page 83 of the June edition of "MotorSport". I quote.... "........in the later years - particularly with the arrival of sintered carbon metallic friction materials - cast iron brakes in many respects caught up [ to carbon brakes]. Friction coeeficients are now about the same, as is the range of acceptable operating temperature. When Damon Hill tested cast iron brakes at Williams in 1995 he and the teaqm reported little obvious difference, deflating arguments that outlawing carbon/carbon would improve overtaking opportunities. Carbon discs do retain one clear benefit over cast iron equivalents, though: they are about a quarter the weight........"

> >2. Add more underbody downforce and less 'over-the-wing' downforce > The concern there is that when the car lifts and the downforce is gone > it's utterly gone - dramatic loss of grip and control. A combination would be best IMO. Look at Mercedes, that car was reliant upon it's body aero - and has a flat bottom which contributed to the flights. For the old type GTP/F1 venturi age cars, you had to turn them around 180 deg to the moving direction to make them fly. And, boy, did they...:) Matt -- --------------------------------- Matthew Birger Knutsen The Art of Legends; http://www.gpl.electra.no Cheek Racing Cars; http://www.cheekracing.electra.no

Hmm, steel brakes are pretty much as effective as carbon these days. Totally agreed. Ban the "plank" to lower ride-heights, shrink the wings and remove diffusers. Only if they're soft, unlike the modern grooved compounds. If F1 uses slicks as hard as 1999's tyres, there will be no change. -- Cheers! Graeme Nash http://www.karisma1.demon.co.uk ICQ# 11257824

>There *is* a difference, and yes, I've heard from more than one source >in the racing community that steel brakes would, over the course of a >race, allow more passing/outbraking attempts. Not according to the testing done in F1, that was my piece of information thrown into the fire - not an opinion or whatever. I too think overtaking should be made "easier" (less risky). At present with CF brakes the overtaking car must totally commit to the manoeuvre - if not committed he'll never pass, if he is committed then if it is misjudged or the other car brakes as late (easier to do on the clean side of the track) there is simply nowhere to go (as we saw with Coulthard/Salo at Hockenheim). I'm just not convinced that steel brakes are the way to go, given the tests that Williams made when F1 were considering re-introducing them. The cars are nervous now, the drivers somewhat expecting a problem. The problem with downforce via ground-effects (skirts or venturis) is that it grips, Grips, GRIPS....GONE - sudden loss with little or no warning - couple that with soft slicks which have a more rapid fall off and the car goes pretty quickly. Still, I do think that is still safer than the current regs, since when the car is spinning the grooved hard compounds do little to slow the car down before any impact. Cheers! John

John, There was an article in Performance Racing News (a Canadian motorsports magazine) a year or two ago in which several F1 designers and engineers where asked what was needed to bring back passing to F1. Almost unanimously, they said that turbocharged engines would do it. Right now, with natural aspiration, the car that is following loses a considerable amount of power as the airflow to the engine is restricted by being in the wake of the car in front. So it's easy to catch the car in front, but once you get there you lose power and can't pull out to make the pass. Turbocharge the engines and that problem goes away. Wayne Hutchison

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >1. Go back to steel brakes to make the braking zones longer > Williams used steel brakes on Zanardi's car in practice at, I think, > Magny Cours and they've also tested them extensively - almost no > difference compared to carbon fibre according to their results. A > switch back to steel would probably make little difference. > >2. Add more underbody downforce and less 'over-the-wing' downforce > The concern there is that when the car lifts and the downforce is gone > it's utterly gone - dramatic loss of grip and control. > >3. Go back to slicks. > I totally agree with that - I'd have turbos back too, and no > refuelling nonsense. I always liked that someone could turn up the > boost to get close and/or have a go, keeps things interesting. > Cheers! > John

>>1. Go back to steel brakes to make the braking zones longer >Hmm, steel brakes are pretty much as effective as carbon these days. I question whether this is true over a race distance. Brakes are affected by temperature, and the characteristics of carbon fiber vs. steel are different, maybe not over a few hotlaps, but I wonder how each would be after running *** a course with heavy braking zones over race distances. Randy Randy Magruder [link lost in import]

>I question whether this is true over a race distance. Brakes are >affected by temperature, and the characteristics of carbon fiber vs. >steel are different, maybe not over a few hotlaps, but I wonder how >each would be after running *** a course with heavy braking zones >over race distances. It depends I suppose on what is steel and what is carbon - you can use brakes with some parts steel and some carbon or even steel covered over with carbon. Ultimate stopping power of each (short term) differs little, the problems come in the wear - with carbon brakes and pads both wear away, but with one or other made of steel the wear of the carbon will be greater. Quite difficult to make it last. Also there is a huge weight difference, particularly bad in the rotational and unsprung sense. The upside is that steel purportedly has more feel, although never having had experience of carbon I personally have no idea if this is the case. I don't really think though that lengthening the braking distance is the best way to increase passing, since in almost any factor you can think of F1 has gone the wrong way. Smaller tires increaes aero reliance, so when aero is lost through turbulence it's impossible to follow another car closely enough. Smaller front-on profile with tightly tucked in wheels means less slipstream for the following car to grab, no turbos, no undercar downforce to offset aero loss, grooved tyres to further limit grip - it goes on and on. Passing is certainly possible as we can see when Schumi, Coulthard, Hakkinen etc get dumped at the back of the grid, but with cars more closely matched on performance overaking becomes just way too risky. Look at DC and EI today and in Austria - despite a massive performance advantage Coulthard couldn't pass - same too against Salo at Hockenheim. With small wings and heavy reliance on front-end downforce there's no way you can a) follow closely enough through the preceding corner, nor b) catch a good tow down the long straights. In a way I'm almost sorry that the races since Spain have been exciting, because a few more boring races may have forced a longer, harder study of the rules. As it is things may not change, although a return to slicks would be a step in the right direction. Cheers! John

Actually, I don't think DC is capable of a competitive pass. Don't get me wrong he's plenty fast but lacks aggression or something. He just looks tentative behind another car. On the subject though, my seriously unqualified, opinion is that they need to reduce (not eliminate) the effect of the wings, increase (not become 100% reliant) on undercar downforce, and go back to slicks with at least two manufacturers supplying the teams.

Quoted text (24 lines)

>I don't really think though that lengthening the braking distance is >the best way to increase passing, since in almost any factor you can >think of F1 has gone the wrong way. Smaller tires increaes aero >reliance, so when aero is lost through turbulence it's impossible to >follow another car closely enough. Smaller front-on profile with >tightly tucked in wheels means less slipstream for the following car >to grab, no turbos, no undercar downforce to offset aero loss, grooved >tyres to further limit grip - it goes on and on. Passing is certainly >possible as we can see when Schumi, Coulthard, Hakkinen etc get dumped >at the back of the grid, but with cars more closely matched on >performance overaking becomes just way too risky. Look at DC and EI >today and in Austria - despite a massive performance advantage >Coulthard couldn't pass - same too against Salo at Hockenheim. With >small wings and heavy reliance on front-end downforce there's no way >you can a) follow closely enough through the preceding corner, nor b) >catch a good tow down the long straights. >In a way I'm almost sorry that the races since Spain have been >exciting, because a few more boring races may have forced a longer, >harder study of the rules. As it is things may not change, although a >return to slicks would be a step in the right direction. >Cheers! >John

Does this theory about naturally aspirated engines apply to nascar as well? Leo

:>3. Go back to slicks. : I totally agree with that - I'd have turbos back too, and no : refuelling nonsense. I always liked that someone could turn up the : boost to get close and/or have a go, keeps things interesting. Except I never found it very exciting to see a race lost on fuel.Sure, everyone can argue what an interesting tactical race it was, blah blah blah, but I really got tired of the sight of a 1000bhp car spluttering to a halt 200m from the finish line. Then again, it was kind of fun watching old whinge-bag push his car in Dallas in 1984, and even more fun to watch the theatrics that followed. FIA's view that pitstops add e***ment to the race got a boost with Irvine and Coulthard this weekend. I was amazed at the restraint they showed... I seem to remember more than a few CART races where hot-headed drivers went over the top of a leading car exiting the pits only because they refused to lift. How about turbos *and* refueling, except use a gravity-fed refueling rig. I don't care if the pitstop is 14 seconds, as long as everybody needs about the same. I'd like to see slicks come back as well, but strangely I've gotten quite used to the new form of the cars. The early 90's cars now look wide to me, and one gets the impression the big gumballs on the back are about to snap off at the spindle! Stephen

What about turbos? At least then you can whack up the power for a few seconds to overtake. I think going back to slicks is essential too. Kev

Quoted text (17 lines)

> It is obvious that grooving the tires to reduce traction is a > complete failure in restoring competitive racing to F1. It is also > obvious the real problem is downforce. Less downforce, more driver > skill required, longer braking zones for passing. So... > 1. Keep the flat bottom rules. 2. Add "No part of the body > work or any aerodynamic device shall exceed 36 inches in width or > height. No part of the suspension or anything else extending outside > these dimensions shall create downforce. This shall be enforced > through wind tunnel testing of the cars with and without all parts > extending past the 36 inch limit." > I'd like to see thousands of pounds of downforce with _that_. > As a bonus the cars would have a more classic look, especially if > there was an appropriate restriction on total width. Have at me. > bob

No comparison if you think about it. A Nascar car punches an extremely big hole in the air and Is not subject to anything like the masses of downforce that a F1 car has. In addition to this a nascar racing on a toilet seat oval is not constantly accelerating and braking in excess of 1g like a F1 car. Mark

(snip) How about turbos *and* refueling, except use a gravity-fed refueling rig. (unsnip) WOW! Time travel.......I'm back in the early 1980s! :o)

On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 14:21:59 -0400, "Wayne Hutchison" >aspiration, the car that is following loses a considerable amount of power >as the airflow to the engine is restricted by being in the wake of the car >in front. So it's easy to catch the car in front, but once you get there you >lose power and can't pull out to make the pass. Turbocharge the engines and >that problem goes away. That's actually a very good point. Side-effects of the difficulty to pass include the following car then has to endure poor airflow to their wings (increasing tire wear), poor airflow to the engine (reducing power - although less since airbox regs were changed), hotter airflow (increasing engine temps), to say nothing of all kinds of ***getting thrown out - all of that can seriously mess up your race strategy, particularly if tires go off. Cheers! John

>Actually, I don't think DC is capable of a competitive pass. Don't get me >wrong he's plenty fast but lacks aggression or something. He just looks >tentative behind another car. Having whacked Hakkinen and Salo in successive races that's perhaps not surprising! I think drivers tend to get tagged as a "hard man" or a "soft touch", and that affects how other drivers will perceive their overtaking attempts. "Hard men" include Schumacher, Hakkinen, Villeneuve etc, who take no prisoners and ruthlessly go for the gaps - Senna and Mansell are prime examples. I think Coulthard is tagged as a "soft touch", alongside people like Hill, Frentzen etc - other drivers will tend not to fight them off more as passing moves are less forceful or well executed. I think Coulthard is a very good driver, fast, professional, committed. He does seem to lack that extra depth that Hakkinen, Schumacher etc reach into when they need to find that 1/10 on the last run of qualifying - I am as sure that Coulthard won't find it as I am that Hakkinen will. Unfortunately that "extra depth" is what IMO separates a world champion contendor from another number on the grid - I think Coulthard will need a better car than everyone or an enormous slice of luck throughout the season to ever be champion. He will win races at tracks which suit him (Monza, Spa, Montreal) but that's no good over a season. I'm not sure about the two manufacturers, it does then come down to which tires suit which track and which manufacturer guessed right on the compound for that weekend. I prefer to see things as level as possible, and it's already difficult enough with chassis, engine and driver differences. Tires tend to make it too complex unless you allow full freedom of use as we had in the 80's - A, B, C & D compounds available plus wets and qualifiers. Cheers! John

On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:43:46 +0100, "Mark Seery" >A Nascar car punches an extremely big hole in the air and Is not subject to >anything like the masses of downforce that a F1 car has. In F1 this somewhat works against the drivers. At places like Hungaroring and Monaco there are wings*** off every possbile place the regs allow and a massive hole is punched in the air creating a big slipstream (for the narrow car anyway). Unfortunately nowhere exists to make use of it on these tracks! On tracks like Hockenheim where slipstreaming is most useful the miniscule wings and narrow track make the slipstream much less, combined with the loss of power caused by the heated and turbulent air of following another car. Bummer... Cheers! John

That happened often as fuel management was little understood then, but by the end of the turbos it was pretty unusual to see since drivers knew constantly whether they were plus or minus on the fuel curve and by how much. For me that was the ultimate time in F1, massively powerful cars which the drivers had to control utterly - manual gearbox, manual clutch, and control of boost and fuel consumption as well as driving the car - with no refuelling your whole strategy unlayed itself from the moment the lights came on, and stops required as often as you burned out the tires. :-) That would allow people to blast up the turbo and guzzle the petrol but try to gain time for an extra stop. It would also allow easier passing by a swift push of the "boost" button. OTOH it's about as anti-green as F1 could go, and perhaps unlikely for that reason alone. Cheers! John

> (snip) > How about turbos *and* refueling, except use a gravity-fed refueling rig. > (unsnip) > WOW! Time travel.......I'm back in the early 1980s! :o) Still remember Brands in '86.....when the cars came around in qual on their warm-up lap_ , 1-lap wonder tires and engine....looked like a swarm of bees was chasing the wings. Yum. Or if you find the tape of Keke Rosberg trying to leave the pits in the Kyalami race of 1985...with the rather cammy Williams/Honda...or Nigel Mansell doing doughnuts at Spa 1986 after a spin in the bus stop...or.... I really wish they had that torque again, they all sound like my electric razor machine on steroids nowadays....<g> But, I guess, that's my past, everything was better in the old days! :-D Hey! How about GP3 set in '85? <vbg> Matt -- --------------------------------- Matthew Birger Knutsen The Art of Legends; http://www.gpl.electra.no Cheek Racing Cars; http://www.cheekracing.electra.no