What Do You Think Can Make F1 More Interesting

[Quiet One 15]

Now that makes sense. I am convinced!

Now, how do we convince the FIA? :eusa_thinkl:

[Rainmaster 7]

You propose some excellent solutions DOF.

Now that makes sense. I am convinced!

Now, how do we convince the FIA? :eusa_thinkl:

Threatening letters perhaps?

[DOF_power 0]

Here's an article about what Sam Michaels of Williams F1 thinks (Autosport article):

Bring ground effect back, says Michael

By Mark Glendenning Thursday, July 5th 2007, 09:43 GMT

Williams technical director Sam Michael has suggested that a reintroduction of ground effect cars could be the answer to improving the opportunities for overtaking in Formula One.

While current proposals to come up with a new technical package for 2011 are geared primarily towards increasing F1's energy efficiency, its relevance to road cars and its environmental impact, the plans are also seen as an opportunity to improve the sporting element.

According to Michael, the return of ground effect - where a low-pressure area is created below the car, effectively sucking it to the road

[DOF_power 0]

You propose some excellent solutions DOF.

Thank you.

But really it's really what's been used before in F1 and now used in Champ Car.

And the last idea to complete this would be the proposed 2011 movable wings. Thus it would reduce turbulence on the straights.

All this would also drasticaly reduce the need for redesigning the aero and suspensions for every race/track.

Threatening letters perhaps?

Well I've tried writing to members of the Renault F1 team via their site.

At least to pose some questions.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Speaking of safety, it's interesting to note that had Senna's car been fitted with active ride he would, perhaps, be alive today.

[DOF_power 0]

Speaking of safety, it's interesting to note that had Senna's car been fitted with active ride he would, perhaps, be alive today.

I personaly am absolutely convinced.

[Elizabeth Sterling 0]

It's likely, yeah, but that's somewhat like saying if Eau Rouge was a straight Stefan Belloff would be alive today.

[Autumnpuma 0]

It's likely, yeah, but that's somewhat like saying if Eau Rouge was a straight Stefan Belloff would be alive today.

I don't think so. Eau Rouge has always been the way it is, all the drivers know that. Bellof, bless his soul, had more courage than perhaps sense, but he knew the dangers of passing there.

Williams were recovering from losing active-ride and their suspension was not 'up to snuff' as a result. This directly impacted Senna and led to his death. I don't see any similarity between a known constant like Eau Rouge and a brand new suspension on an F1 machine.

[Elizabeth Sterling 0]

I don't think so. Eau Rouge has always been the way it is, all the drivers know that. Bellof, bless his soul, had more courage than perhaps sense, but he knew the dangers of passing there.

Williams were recovering from losing active-ride and their suspension was not 'up to snuff' as a result. This directly impacted Senna and led to his death. I don't see any similarity between a known constant like Eau Rouge and a brand new suspension on an F1 machine.

Actually Eau Rouge has been chicaned off in the past and it has been modified over the years to make it safer. My point is it's a risk people accept as you said so yourself because it makes life more interesting. The same applies to removing driver aids.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Actually Eau Rouge has been chicaned off in the past and it has been modified over the years to make it safer. My point is it's a risk people accept as you said so yourself because it makes life more interesting. The same applies to removing driver aids.

I think we can agree, except you took me too literally about Eau Rouge! It hasn't stayed the same through the years, but when Bellof attempted to pass Ickx there, he knew what Eau Rouge was like. It was known. Knowing that, it was his decision and that cost him his life. Senna didn't have the luxury of making a decision about the Williams' suspension. The more we talk about this, the more I'm convinced it's too small an issue to talk about!!

[DOF_power 0]

Williams were recovering from losing active-ride and their suspension was not 'up to snuff' as a result.

...

Senna didn't have the luxury of making a decision about the Williams' suspension. The more we talk about this, the more I'm convinced it's too small an issue to talk about!!

The active suspension system with the car made around it controled/influenced/modified ride height (low ride height = more downforce and high ride height less drag), rake angle, castor, camber, center of gravity, center of pressure, aero and mass balance/distribution, eliminated squat, roll and dive alltogether, eliminated understeer (front down) and oversteer (rear down + anti wheel spin) ... etc

So the car needed to be completly redesigned, meaning wheelbase length, weight distribution, aerodynamics, not just suspensions.

But because the ban came in late 93, there was no time. And the pre season testing saw accidents, witch led Senna to the make horrific prophecy that only a miracle would allow everyone to escape in one piece.

But the miracle never happened.

The person I blame most is Mosley because the pre season accidents showed that active design philosophy + passive components = disaster.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Ways of improving F1:

Put Emma Bunton into a race car and get a sliding skirt on her

Bring back ground effect, slicks, turbos, 6 wheeled cars!!!

Lose all the aerodynamic tea-trays attached to the car

Tie Max Mosley onto the bonnet of the pace car in all of the really hot races, cover him in jam and park the car near a large ant-hill

Lose Monza

Go to places where it rains a lot - e.g. the Scottish Grand Prix

Make all sponsorship go into a central pot and divide the money/logos out equally

Put an upper limit on driver pay

Ban fuel stops

For people with UK-derived TV coverage:

Replace James Allen with Ben Edwards

Get Mark Blundell into elocution lessons

Get rid of adverts

[Autumnpuma 0]

The active suspension system with the car made around it controled/influenced/modified ride height (low ride height = more downforce and high ride height less drag), rake angle, castor, camber, center of gravity, center of pressure, aero and mass balance/distribution, eliminated squat, roll and dive alltogether, eliminated understeer (front down) and oversteer (rear down + anti wheel spin) ... etc

So the car needed to be completly redesigned, meaning wheelbase length, weight distribution, aerodynamics, not just suspensions.

But because the ban came in late 93, there was no time. And the pre season testing saw accidents, witch led Senna to the make horrific prophecy that only a miracle would allow everyone to escape in one piece.

But the miracle never happened.

The person I blame most is Mosley because the pre season accidents showed that active design philosophy + passive components = disaster.

I can't win. When I try to be detailed, I get comments about being too verbose and when I try to be concise, I get DOF expanding my single sentence into a history and technology lesson....

[goferrarigo 0]

I can't win. When I try to be detailed, I get comments about being too verbose and when I try to be concise, I get DOF expanding my single sentence into a history and technology lesson....

Well its really a good read to the rest of us...

[Elizabeth Sterling 0]

You can increase, keep, decrease the downforce, but it doesn't mean racing will get better. Because it's how the downforce is produced that's the problem.

The new Panoz DP01 Champ Car has more downforce then the old Lola one and the racing is better.

F1 has less downforce then in 2003 but the racing is worse.

So the idea that less downforce = better racing is B*.

The official CCWS statement

The undertray (upside down in this picture),

So the things that controled the relationship with the ground in F1 were either hydropneumatic suspensions used by Brabham, or active suspensions used by Lotus, Williams, McLaren (inspired by BMC's hydroelastic suspensions witch itself was inspired by Citroen's hydropneumatic).

Didn't the Ferrari F92A do something similar with a double floor?

[DOF_power 0]

Didn't the Ferrari F92A do something similar with a double floor?

Precisely, the tried to get the ground effects via the double floor.

The inconsistencies, drag penalty ?! and wimpy engine didn't help.

Williams with the flatbottom-difusser + active suspensions formula did a succed in generationg ground effects.

[Jean Todt 4]

less talks. More driving. Less press, more driving. Less boring celebs, more track babes.

[Argento Reloaded 1]

I

[Rainmaster 7]

less talks. More driving. Less press, more driving. Less boring celebs, more track babes.

Sounds nice...sounds like the 60's.

[Jean Todt 4]

Sounds nice...sounds like the 60's.

But, did they have babes back then?

[Rainmaster 7]

But, did they have babes back then?

I really hope so, then again her voice did seem a little deep...

[Eric 0]

Make it more interesting? Race on dirt ovals. That'll get fun.

Okay, seriously (when the hell does Eric say seriously?), here's what I've got.

In theory, Formula 1 is a spectacle, not a race. The spectacle part is crap. Let's get the **** away from celebrities, roast gooose, wine, whiners, and Peter Windsor and go racin'. Thanks. For F1, it's all going to be about balancing racing, technological innovation, pleasing governments and hippies, and most of all making money. There's a theory out there, some sick twisted mind thought this up, that racing sells, and covering racing up with business is like trying to call images of fully-clothed hot women porn. Granted, it's taking it a little far, but is racing really in the blood of Formula 1? F1 never was moonshine drinkin' hillbillies on a dirt oval.

With that said, can you break from tradition? Can you de-evolve? NASCAR's gone to a big business, luring in big names and most importantly, big money. Can F1 go from sophisticates to down in the dirt racin'? Should it? Where's this happy medium? Where do you please everyone? Where do the dirt Late Model fans, Indianapolis 500 diehards, F1 fans, and Le Mans fans all go together as one big happy family?

What exactly is great racing? Is great racing banging fenders fighting to the finish line? Is great racing a high-speed chess match, the hunter stalking the prey, a la Imola 2005? Is great racing a strategic war and a demonstration of technology? Is it constant slip-stream passes?

ALMS is great racing. 1980s and 1990s NASCAR is great racing. 1990s CART is great racing. Midgets, sprints, Late Models, Street Stocks on dirt and pavement is great racing. So what do all of those have in common? What determines the great racing?

Consider this: ALMS has a huge amount of innovation. 1980s and 1990s NASCAR was before the common templates and spec-car COT, when each manufacture had an identity. CART had a few different chassis and engines, and even when it went to all-Lola, it wasn't spec until the DP01. Midgets, sprints, Lates, and Streets are all different...chassis are many years apart in age, and teams are very separate in wealth.

Variation in cars. So is variation what we need? Don't we have variation?

Eliminate winglets. Eliminate aero. Bring back slick tires. Take away Traction Control and Driving Aids. Keep the innovation, but not the road car relevant kind, just the kind to go racin'. Dumb the cars down in computer tech.

Winglets and aero make it hard to overtake.

Slicks and no TC make it harder to drive, and enables the better drivers to shine. The best driver should win, and they should be pushed to the max to win. Tony Cotman wants Champ Car to be the biggest, baddest racing machine. F1 should want that, too.

Road car relevant tech is dumb. Focus on tech to make the racing more competitive, not tech to fix the world's problems.

I agree that it should be more about the driver and less about geeks pushing buttons. Bring some real racing back into it.

[Jean Todt 4]

I really hope so, then again her voice did seem a little deep...

hmm ok. Did u dreamt of her too? she was not for real ,it was bernie and Mosley dressed like girls! Back then it was impossible to get girls to stand next to cars, as they were busy in the college.

[Jean Todt 4]

Make it more interesting? Race on dirt ovals. That'll get fun.

Okay, seriously (when the hell does Eric say seriously?), here's what I've got.

In theory, Formula 1 is a spectacle, not a race. The spectacle part is crap. Let's get the **** away from celebrities, roast gooose, wine, whiners, and Peter Windsor and go racin'. Thanks. For F1, it's all going to be about balancing racing, technological innovation, pleasing governments and hippies, and most of all making money. There's a theory out there, some sick twisted mind thought this up, that racing sells, and covering racing up with business is like trying to call images of fully-clothed hot women porn. Granted, it's taking it a little far, but is racing really in the blood of Formula 1? F1 never was moonshine drinkin' hillbillies on a dirt oval.

With that said, can you break from tradition? Can you de-evolve? NASCAR's gone to a big business, luring in big names and most importantly, big money. Can F1 go from sophisticates to down in the dirt racin'? Should it? Where's this happy medium? Where do you please everyone? Where do the dirt Late Model fans, Indianapolis 500 diehards, F1 fans, and Le Mans fans all go together as one big happy family?

What exactly is great racing? Is great racing banging fenders fighting to the finish line? Is great racing a high-speed chess match, the hunter stalking the prey, a la Imola 2005? Is great racing a strategic war and a demonstration of technology? Is it constant slip-stream passes?

ALMS is great racing. 1980s and 1990s NASCAR is great racing. 1990s CART is great racing. Midgets, sprints, Late Models, Street Stocks on dirt and pavement is great racing. So what do all of those have in common? What determines the great racing?

Consider this: ALMS has a huge amount of innovation. 1980s and 1990s NASCAR was before the common templates and spec-car COT, when each manufacture had an identity. CART had a few different chassis and engines, and even when it went to all-Lola, it wasn't spec until the DP01. Midgets, sprints, Lates, and Streets are all different...chassis are many years apart in age, and teams are very separate in wealth.

Variation in cars. So is variation what we need? Don't we have variation?

Eliminate winglets. Eliminate aero. Bring back slick tires. Take away Traction Control and Driving Aids. Keep the innovation, but not the road car relevant kind, just the kind to go racin'. Dumb the cars down in computer tech.

Winglets and aero make it hard to overtake.

Slicks and no TC make it harder to drive, and enables the better drivers to shine. The best driver should win, and they should be pushed to the max to win. Tony Cotman wants Champ Car to be the biggest, baddest racing machine. F1 should want that, too.

Road car relevant tech is dumb. Focus on tech to make the racing more competitive, not tech to fix the world's problems.

I agree that it should be more about the driver and less about geeks pushing buttons. Bring some real racing back into it.

[goferrarigo 0]

Very good post, Eric. You have analysed the issue quite well....