Fia Unveils Radical Plans For 2011

[DOF_power 0]

But Telemetry/Data Logging can be used to decide:

a) if the driver pulls a Prost/Senna/Schumacher "maneuvre"

determine if a car has problems and diagnosticate/help identify them

Should we return to the days when only 6 to 10 cars finished a race and they separated by up to 7 laps ?!

[pumpdoc 2]

But Telemetry/Data Logging can be used to decide:

a) if the driver pulls a Prost/Senna/Schumacher "maneuvre"

determine if a car has problems and diagnosticate/help identify them

Should we return to the days when only 6 to 10 cars finished a race and they separated by up to 7 laps ?!

If need be................Finishing is a privalge not a right..............

[monza gorilla 1]

DOF, that's not what I meant, although I see your point. Race control would still receive a telemetry feed, so the "Prost/Senna/Schumacher" manoeuvre would still be detectable. What I would like to see is the driver taking more responsibility for set up and the race without outside assistance (such as Taku's engineer telling him where the other cars are). I doubt it will ever happen, but find it an interesting idea.

[pabloh20 1]

I think F1 is currently very different to football. In football you can't be lucky for a whole season, I agree. But in F1 you can! One car will be the best one to have in any particular season. In some cases (like '97 say) the advantage could be more than 0.5s/lap. That's more than any driver can make up (as we saw!). The problem is that the drivers title is mainly decided by the teams!

I disagree. You can't be lucky for a whole season in F1.

You may have the best car, equipment, etc, but it still takes hard work and know how to win. For example, player for player, through the whole squad, whose team is better Chelsea or Man U? When Chelsea won the title, especially the 2nd year, who played the better football - Chelsea, Man U or Arsenal? But who played the most effective football?

I just don't think it is quite as cut and dried as you, Muzza.

This is a good point. However, remember that we can design our car to have any characteristics we want. If you like we could ensure that they had a car that oversteered a little one weekend, understeered the next and was perfectly balanced the next weekend. This is the advantage of being in control of the equipment. Alternatively you could give the drivers a lot of flexibility in setting it up themselves. Or you could do both. Maybe you could even change the balance during each weekend, in a controlled manner!

I do agree, though, that it will never be perfect. But no sport ever is. I mean Nadal would be the best tennis player in the world if Wimbledon were played on clay, or a footballer may look great in the Italian league but fail completely in the Premiership. That's just the nature of sport. The differences in ability are so small that the fine details of the rules (ie the nature of the sport) matter enormously. But in all those cases, at least we know that the player(s) who win(s) are the best at that sport, given the current rules. In F1 that isn't the case, unless one's definition of "best" includes the "skill" of getting the best car, which is the main thing these days.

I disagree again!

If it was possible to design the car to have any characteristics you want, for any given race, then surely the teams would just do that for both of their drivers every race weekend, if indeed it was posssible? We have only just recently heard Brundle say 'you have an excellent set up through the practice and qualifying sessions only to have a dog of a race car on race day and you wonder what happened......'

[DOF_power 0]

DOF, that's not what I meant, although I see your point. Race control would still receive a telemetry feed, so the "Prost/Senna/Schumacher" manoeuvre would still be detectable. What I would like to see is the driver taking more responsibility for set up and the race without outside assistance (such as Taku's engineer telling him where the other cars are). I doubt it will ever happen, but find it an interesting idea.

But they do take control of setup. Schu was a master of setup, as was Lauda, Prost, as are Alonso and Heidfeld.

I remember once reading about Jim Clark having a problem, and he didn't knew to about it, so Jack Brabham risked his life in the attempt to anounce Clark about his problem. Scary, dangerous days.

[DOF_power 0]

If need be................Finishing is a privalge not a right..............

But it wasn't a privilege. Back then teams had no quality control or safety, and it took (a lot of) sheer dumb luck to finish the race alive, unharmed, let alone score points/podiums/victories/winning championships.

And at one point, this sheer dumb luck for many stoped.

[Max Mosley 2]

DOF, that's not what I meant, although I see your point. Race control would still receive a telemetry feed, so the "Prost/Senna/Schumacher" manoeuvre would still be detectable. What I would like to see is the driver taking more responsibility for set up and the race without outside assistance (such as Taku's engineer telling him where the other cars are). I doubt it will ever happen, but find it an interesting idea.

Yes I think your idea is a good one. Problem is, it's unlikely to make much difference while we have teams.

I disagree. You can't be lucky for a whole season in F1.

You may have the best car, equipment, etc, but it still takes hard work and know how to win. For example, player for player, through the whole squad, whose team is better Chelsea or Man U? When Chelsea won the title, especially the 2nd year, who played the better football - Chelsea, Man U or Arsenal? But who played the most effective football?

I just don't think it is quite as cut and dried as you, Muzza.

Disagreement is good! That's why we're here!

So, I think you can easily be lucky in F1. If you win because you had a better car, then that's luck, by my definitions. Others may disagree.

That's not to say you don't still need to be quite good to win. But it means the best driver doesn't win, which makes the WDC pretty meaningless imho.

(In football, I would say the most effective football is the best, by my definition of best. Again others might disagree, in which case they should advocate changing the rules of football imho.)

I disagree again!

If it was possible to design the car to have any characteristics you want, for any given race, then surely the teams would just do that for both of their drivers every race weekend, if indeed it was posssible? We have only just recently heard Brundle say 'you have an excellent set up through the practice and qualifying sessions only to have a dog of a race car on race day and you wonder what happened......'

Yeah but the situation is very different now. The cars are designed to be faster than the competition under very stringent regulations. This makes it harder to give the driver perfect balance. Now, if you didn't have all those competing objectives (obey very tough F1 rules, be faster than other teams etc) you could design a car that had the characteristics that we want. This is a good illustration of how the presence of the teams causes problems.

[pabloh20 1]

Disagreement is good! That's why we're here!

So, I think you can easily be lucky in F1. If you win because you had a better car, then that's luck, by my definitions. Others may disagree.

That's not to say you don't still need to be quite good to win. But it means the best driver doesn't win, which makes the WDC pretty meaningless imho.

(In football, I would say the most effective football is the best, by my definition of best. Again others might disagree, in which case they should advocate changing the rules of football imho.)

I do disgree!

Is this a slight contradiction in your definitions of 'the best', Muzza? Chelsea were the most effective over the season, but they didn't play the best football, by most people's definition, yet you think Chelsea were the best team by virtue of being the most effective. So surely that contradicts the purity of your wanting the best to win? By your definition, should it not be the team that plays the best football that wins? Ok, the analogy is not quite the same, but you see what I mean. I think an F1 driver who wins, even if he had the best car, has still had some work to do. If he is in the best car, then he should havea reasonable teammate to contend with, amongst other things - I know it's not always the case, but I just don't accept the WDC being quite as meaningless as you do.

Yeah but the situation is very different now. The cars are designed to be faster than the competition under very stringent regulations. This makes it harder to give the driver perfect balance. Now, if you didn't have all those competing objectives (obey very tough F1 rules, be faster than other teams etc) you could design a car that had the characteristics that we want. This is a good illustration of how the presence of the teams causes problems.

I still think there are external variables that would come into play that would affect the set up. I now what you mean about competing objectives, but in the example of Brundle's I said, if you arrive at a great setup that has worked for qualifying and for high fuel loads and everything is hunky dory, how does it change so much for race day, as Brundle said?

[Max Mosley 2]

Is this a slight contradiction in your definitions of 'the best', Muzza? Chelsea were the most effective over the season, but they didn't play the best football, by most people's definition, yet you think Chelsea were the best team by virtue of being the most effective. So surely that contradicts the purity of your wanting the best to win? By your definition, should it not be the team that plays the best football that wins? Ok, the analogy is not quite the same, but you see what I mean. I think an F1 driver who wins, even if he had the best car, has still had some work to do. If he is in the best car, then he should havea reasonable teammate to contend with, amongst other things - I know it's not always the case, but I just don't accept the WDC being quite as meaningless as you do.

By "best" I mean "most effective". To me they're the same thing. It doesn't have to be the most beautiful driving, or the most exciting driving. It just has to be driving that would beat anyone else, given a fair set of rules where everyone had the same chance. The problem with F1 is that to be "effective" or successful, you just have to be in the best car. To me that's like letting one team in football play all its games at home.

How were Chelsea not as good, but more effective? You mean they were less skilled in some sense? But in another sense they must have been more skilled in order to win. That's not the case in F1, unless you consider getting into a top team a worthy "skill".

I do accept that any WDC is quite good, but they're not the best necessarily. And even when they happen to be, the WDC doesn't tell you that.

I still think there are external variables that would come into play that would affect the set up. I now what you mean about competing objectives, but in the example of Brundle's I said, if you arrive at a great setup that has worked for qualifying and for high fuel loads and everything is hunky dory, how does it change so much for race day, as Brundle said?

Yeah OK. So we could make it reasonably fair, by varying the characteristics of the cars in a controlled way. There would also be some random variation but that's ok because it would even out over time, if we designed the cars to take that into account. We could also make the cars much less sensitive to external variables if we wanted to. This is the advantage of being in control of the design process rather than having teams.

[monza gorilla 1]

But they do take control of setup. Schu was a master of setup, as was Lauda, Prost, as are Alonso and Heidfeld.

I remember once reading about Jim Clark having a problem, and he didn't knew to about it, so Jack Brabham risked his life in the attempt to anounce Clark about his problem. Scary, dangerous days.

Yes, but with much assistance from telemetry. Without this I think it would emphasise the difference between those who are good at setting the car up (by feel) (the names you mentioned, and more) and those who aren't so good.

[pabloh20 1]

By "best" I mean "most effective". To me they're the same thing. It doesn't have to be the most beautiful driving, or the most exciting driving. It just has to be driving that would beat anyone else, given a fair set of rules where everyone had the same chance. The problem with F1 is that to be "effective" or successful, you just have to be in the best car. To me that's like letting one team in football play all its games at home.

How were Chelsea not as good, but more effective? You mean they were less skilled in some sense? But in another sense they must have been more skilled in order to win. That's not the case in F1, unless you consider getting into a top team a worthy "skill".

I do accept that any WDC is quite good, but they're not the best necessarily. And even when they happen to be, the WDC doesn't tell you that.

Well, I suppose if that's your definiton of best, then fair enough. However, I would imagine quite a lot of people would want the 'best' driver to have a bit of flair, a bit of excitment, a bit of passion, to demonstrate skill beyond the other drivers abilities. Your proposal could benefit the driver who is not necessarily as good as some of the others, but takes fewer risks and so always brings the car home in the points, plays the percentage game. Which is precisely what you said you didn't want, was it not? Or is it just a case of whoever wins the WDC on a completely level paying field, if it's possible, enjoys the rank of 'best driver' ?

Yeah OK. So we could make it reasonably fair, by varying the characteristics of the cars in a controlled way. There would also be some random variation but that's ok because it would even out over time, if we designed the cars to take that into account. We could also make the cars much less sensitive to external variables if we wanted to. This is the advantage of being in control of the design process rather than having teams.

See, I don't think that's possible, Muzza, but then I suppose you don't know unless you try. However, the current evidence we have doesn't seem to agree with you on this one!

[Max Mosley 2]

Well, I suppose if that's your definiton of best, then fair enough. However, I would imagine quite a lot of people would want the 'best' driver to have a bit of flair, a bit of excitment, a bit of passion, to demonstrate skill beyond the other drivers abilities. Your proposal could benefit the driver who is not necessarily as good as some of the others, but takes fewer risks and so always brings the car home in the points, plays the percentage game. Which is precisely what you said you didn't want, was it not? Or is it just a case of whoever wins the WDC on a completely level paying field, if it's possible, enjoys the rank of 'best driver' ?

Yeah! That's my definition. Bringing the car home is a skill to me. It's not as fun to watch as crazy moves but still, it has to count in the WDC.

See, I don't think that's possible, Muzza, but then I suppose you don't know unless you try. However, the current evidence we have doesn't seem to agree with you on this one!

Yeah but you can't rely on the current evidence, because it's a different situation. Not all cars behave like current F1 cars. For example, the sophisticated aerodynamics make things more sensitive. We could change them for a start. But just in general, if we didn't have the competing objectives we could design the cars to be less sensitive. I reckon anyway! (Which of course makes it true)

[YHR 0]

F1 is a formulae series, not a KISS series (think stock car racing; and I DON'T mean NASCAR), nor a spec series. Even more it's Formula 1, meaning the anti-KISS series par excellence.

This sport has been has been dancing to the tune the engineers since 1906, when the first GP took part. This doesn't mean it's just a team/engineering sport. It's actually a complex and weird combination/mixture between individual and team, even tough initially GP racing was born as a team/manufacturer competition.

The difference, is the science of engineering in today's F1 totally dominates the show, where it no longer represents the show people really want to see. I am saying F1 needs to bring back the balance between the driving and engineering.

If they don't then at least be honest and drop the WDC completely and only have a WCC. Because that is what they have now, and the fans know it.

[Max Mosley 2]

Yeah. It's true.

[pabloh20 1]

Yeah! That's my definition. Bringing the car home is a skill to me. It's not as fun to watch as crazy moves but still, it has to count in the WDC.

Fair enough, but you have to accept that not everybody will recognise the same skill set when judging who is the best driver. So you may still have a WDC that is as 'meaningful' as it is now! For example, I don't use the same criteria as you for judging the best driver and quite frankly, I outrank you!

Yeah but you can't rely on the current evidence, because it's a different situation. Not all cars behave like current F1 cars. For example, the sophisticated aerodynamics make things more sensitive. We could change them for a start. But just in general, if we didn't have the competing objectives we could design the cars to be less sensitive. I reckon anyway! (Which of course makes it true)

Well, I suppose it is possible, but it wouldn't be purely down to the aerodynamics, surely?

[Max Mosley 2]

Fair enough, but you have to accept that not everybody will recognise the same skill set when judging who is the best driver. So you may still have a WDC that is as 'meaningful' as it is now! For example, I don't use the same criteria as you for judging the best driver and quite frankly, I outrank you!

You out-wank me? Right that's it! Lets see just who has the bigger skill set Paul!

Well, I suppose it is possible, but it wouldn't be purely down to the aerodynamics, surely?

Yeah, it wouldn't be perfect I admit, but as long as the variations are relatively small and unbiased over the whole season then I think it would be OK. And yes, I'm sure there's more to it than aero, but that's the most sensitive bit I think.

[DOF_power 0]

Yes, but with much assistance from telemetry. Without this I think it would emphasise the difference between those who are good at setting the car up (by feel) (the names you mentioned, and more) and those who aren't so good.

But today's cars are super sofistcated/complicated. With 10s of thousands of part. Thus 99,99% wouldn't be enough, not by a long shot. We'd return, without telemtry, to those days of unreliability, weird handling propotypes, and high risks.

[DOF_power 0]

The difference, is the science of engineering in today's F1 totally dominates the show, where it no longer represents the show people really want to see. I am saying F1 needs to bring back the balance between the driving and engineering.

If they don't then at least be honest and drop the WDC completely and only have a WCC. Because that is what they have now, and the fans know it.

Please tell me when there was a balance and when was it lost.

Because there was always engineering involved.

[monza gorilla 1]

I think he means that the driver shone more in the days when technology was less advanced. I understand that. Or is it that we could really see a driver at work in those halcyon days? That's probably nearer the mark. You are right though, in a way, that even with the most technologically advanced cars you still need the best drivers to extract the maximum from them. Otherwise we'd all be doing it.

[pabloh20 1]

You out-wank me? Right that's it! Lets see just who has the bigger skill set Paul!

Indeed I do!

Yeah, it wouldn't be perfect I admit, but as long as the variations are relatively small and unbiased over the whole season then I think it would be OK. And yes, I'm sure there's more to it than aero, but that's the most sensitive bit I think.

I am not convinced, Muzza, but I will remain 'open' about it.

[DOF_power 0]

Even when technology was less advanced, it was still advanced, and it was still crucial to giving top teams the edge, along with reliability.

And today's cars don't drive themselves, far from it.

No CFD or aero engineer, could get into a car to see if it has brake stability or enough aero grip at a particular corner. They wouldn't be fit nor capable.

[YHR 0]

Even when technology was less advanced, it was still advanced, and it was still crucial to giving top teams the edge, along with reliability.

And today's cars don't drive themselves, far from it.

No CFD or aero engineer, could get into a car to see if it has brake stability or enough aero grip at a particular corner. They wouldn't be fit nor capable.

That is true, but it still doesn't change the fact that driver input means less now then it ever did, and that is the problem as I see it. You can spin the engineering angle all you want and point out how it has always been an important part of the sport. That fact simply doesn't matter, because the science of the sport has eclipsed the human ability of the driver. That is the problem.

You also seem to think I want engineering out of the sport, which is not true. I simply say let the engineers focus on HP, Fuel economy, suspension, materials, safety and tires. Leave the aero out of it and give the drive back to the drivers.

[Autumnpuma 0]

This thread has evolved into one of the best I can remember in my short time here....thanks mainly to DOF for presenting a very detailed and reasoned viewpoint. Well done!

But they do take control of setup. Schu was a master of setup, as was Lauda, Prost, as are Alonso and Heidfeld.

I remember once reading about Jim Clark having a problem, and he didn't knew to about it, so Jack Brabham risked his life in the attempt to anounce Clark about his problem. Scary, dangerous days.

And as a result we all admire the bravery of Clark and Brabham for racing those machines. Most people don't have that same level of awe when regarding today's drivers.

That is true, but it still doesn't change the fact that driver input means less now then it ever did, and that is the problem as I see it. You can spin the engineering angle all you want and point out how it has always been an important part of the sport. That fact simply doesn't matter, because the science of the sport has eclipsed the human ability of the driver. That is the problem.

You also seem to think I want engineering out of the sport, which is not true. I simply say let the engineers focus on HP, Fuel economy, suspension, materials, safety and tires. Leave the aero out of it and give the drive back to the drivers.

I'm glad you're posting again...I agree with you 100% here.

The powers-that-be can make all the rules they want to, but nothing will change until they understand one vital pointt:

Mechanical grip is God.

[dribbler 6]

You out-wank me? Right that's it! Lets see just who has the bigger skill set Paul!

Don't take him on Muzza, he will win hands down, then up, then down, then up.........

Really enjoyed your debate.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Don't take him on Muzza, he will win hands down, then up, then down, then up.........

Really enjoyed your debate.

So, you're saying that Muzza's member requires both hands? Impressive....