Fia Unveils Radical Plans For 2011

[Max Mosley 2]

Good to see she's keen to help!

I don't think so. I would think the differences would be about the same. Innovation would focus on other areas: suspension, weight distribution, braking, and the bigger teams would get those right more often than the smaller. I think the return to mechanical grip would see the more skillful drivers highlighted and weed out the Zolts and the Kliens.

Perhaps you're right. I don't know really, but I would have thought that aero is a particularly difficult area because its so complicated, unconstrained and dependent on trial and error. Whereas braking for example is surely relatively simple (of course, it's all relative) if you buy standard brakes (and tyres)? Having said that if better drivers shine with more mechanical grip, that's a big improvement in itself.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Perhaps you're right. I don't know really, but I would have thought that aero is a particularly difficult area because its so complicated, unconstrained and dependent on trial and error. Whereas braking for example is surely relatively simple (of course, it's all relative) if you buy standard brakes (and tyres)? Having said that if better drivers shine with more mechanical grip, that's a big improvement in itself.

I see what you're getting at and I agree that there's only so much you can do with, for example, the brakes. I was only guessing and probably wrong about it! I would not argue if we saw Sutil in the Spyker get closer to the front!

[DOF_power 0]

No, I actually am right on this one, DOF. Aero enables the cars to go quicker throught the twisty parts. That being said (and you agreeing with it) I'm not sure what you're arguing...

That tire technology progress made today's tires capable of withstanding the punishment (coming from aero grip and "agressive driving").

Today's tires can "take it", the old ones on the non-downforce cars couldn't. Their "limit" goes along with aero limit speed/stress and beyond.

[ecapdeville 0]

I'm just here sitted reading and learning...

masters!

[Autumnpuma 0]

That tire technology progress made today's tires capable of withstanding the punishment (coming from aero grip and "agressive driving").

Today's tires can "take it", the old ones on the non-downforce cars couldn't. Their "limit" goes along with aero limit speed/stress and beyond.

True...the tyre's composition is something I've failed to look at here. Excellent point!

Ecap, you and I have been following motorsports for the same amount of time. Jump into this my friend!

[ecapdeville 0]

Ecap, you and I have been following motorsports for the same amount of time. Jump into this my friend!

Yeah...happens that is hard for me to say the things I wish to say in english...for the moment I will just watch the masters playing the game...

[DOF_power 0]

OK. There would be a few issues to do with how you ensure acceleration and breaking aren't too fast. Presumably the brakes we have now are much better, which might be dangerous with much faster top speeds. But in principle I agree with you, if can can be done safely in practice.

But you need to be fast at acceleration (and deceleration). The Monza straight isn't 9 Km long like the straights on the AVUS.

[DOF_power 0]

Remember the Chaparral J. The car had a separate motor to run two fans that sucked the car down onto the track. It was banned back in 1967. Sometimes engineers go too far. Somewhere you have to draw the line. Instead of a horribly technical engineered solution,that requires even more engineering, and a hopeless enforcement policy to the complicated interpretation of those rules, lets just get back to basics.

GP/F1 wasn't about basic, it never had them, but how will you go beyond the basics tunder regulations to win.

The Chaparral was a good idea, imature/ahead of times, unfortunately killed by some idiots.

[DOF_power 0]

You really do seem annoyed that people give credit to those annoying little squishies called 'drivers'. Is this what you intend? Jimmy Clark had a very fast car in the Lotus, but it was a handful to drive. It's power kicked violently around the slow corners and you needed to have extraordinary reflexes to control the thing. Jimmy often was so skilled that he had a massive lead on the competition. That was all down to the driver because without that pesky little guy, the car would be undrivable.

I'm not saying they weren't skilled or anything.

Just that it was 50 to 67% sheer dumb luck (the probability of a car not finishing) and the rest was driver/car/team.

Ofcourse, even if you did finish the race, it didn't meant that you'd finish trouble free.

So you'd need more that 50 to 67% sheer dumb luck so as to finish without any technical problems.

I can live with this, but the FIA would never go for it. Combining today's aero with slicks would result in lap times 2 seconds quicker than right now (as proven by a recent Ferrari test) and that is too fast for the FIA to be comfortable with.

That's the problem with F1. Though they have huge budgets, due to stupidity, they're only 5 to 7 seconds faster per lap that the chepo unheard of Champ Car series (by 2006 Montreal number; I guess the gap would be bigger at say, Monaco). It should have been 15 to 17 seconds at least.

[Max Mosley 2]

But there's a limit to how fast human beings can safely race cars. I'm actually puzzled why CCWS is so slow. I think they could easily be faster than F1 cars. You don't need too much money to build a faster car than an F1 car, because F1 has so many regulations.

[DOF_power 0]

But there's a limit to how fast human beings can safely race cars.

But we're not anywhere near that limit.

I'm actually puzzled why CCWS is so slow. I think they could easily be faster than F1 cars. You don't need too much money to build a faster car than an F1 car, because F1 has so many regulations.

In that I agree, in that F1 cars are both more expensive to build and slower vs. 2004. And no matter how much the engineers take back, at the end of the year, FIA retards the cars again. Under a season the cars gain about 2.00+ seconds per lap. So we should have had at least 5 sec. vs. 2004.

Champ car is slower because:

- they're heavier

- lack the seamless semi-automatic transmissions

- lack Carbon Carbon brakes

That means than on the acceleration cycle, straight-lateral-deceleration they're slower (particularily in the corners).

[Max Mosley 2]

Yeah I agree. But this means that F1 shouldn't be faster than CCWS. Even if you let them go a lot faster in F1, CCWS would get to the same point. It's relatively easy to build a car faster than humans can race.

But we're not anywhere near that limit.

Well, I think we're reasonably close. I don't think you could safely make F1 much more than 10s/lap faster. I remember DC saying that speeds were about right a few years ago, before they were slowed down significantly.

[YHR 0]

I'm not saying they weren't skilled or anything.

Just that it was 50 to 67% sheer dumb luck (the probability of a car not finishing) and the rest was driver/car/team.

Ofcourse, even if you did finish the race, it didn't meant that you'd finish trouble free.

So you'd need more that 50 to 67% sheer dumb luck so as to finish without any technical problems.

That's the problem with F1. Though they have huge budgets, due to stupidity, they're only 5 to 7 seconds faster per lap that the chepo unheard of Champ Car series (by 2006 Montreal number; I guess the gap would be bigger at say, Monaco). It should have been 15 to 17 seconds at least.

Boy you sure seem bitter. You seem bent on givng next to no credit to the driver in the race result. You claim that the driver's chance of finishing was 50% so his victory was based on luck. I would say this had nothing to do with driver luck, and everything to do with the ability of the team engineers.

F1 viewing numbers are up this year even without Schumacher, Why, because of Lewis Hamilton, a lowly driver who has captured the passion of the sport. A new kid, a fresh face, youngster is the story in F1 right now. You are missing the point on how important the drivers are to the passion of this sport.

Your comment about the Chaparral, was loaded. Again you applaud anything to do with engineering , and have no concept about the humanistic side of the show.

In the concept of human achievments, engineers are wasting their time in F1. There are much better things to go after then making a internal combustion machine outreach the human ability to drive it. You can be the best damn steam locomotive engineer in the world, and in todays world, who cares. So when you realize that little of the engineering work going on at the race track is going into things that advance our society, all that is left is the show. If the show is boring and the engineering advancements, hohum, (in the big scheme of things)what exactly is there worth watching.????

IT's the drivers man. That is what people are interested in. So give them what they want, or face the consequences.

Comments have been made on how slow and boring it has been around the forum lately. You want to know why. MS, JV,JB,DC, even FA and KR in some respect are either gone or performing below the level people expect out of them. All these drivers stirred emotion in people, and this year they are not. The teams and engineers are the same, and yet without that semi-emotional attachment to a driver the show is forgettable.

[Max Mosley 2]

Yeah. I thought of a clearer way to explain my views too about the drivers vs technical aspects of the sport: the drivers championship imho is the way to go because the drivers in F1 are the best in the world, but that's not true of the engineers. There are better engineers/scientists in any top university than there are in F1. I think YHR has hit on the reason why:

In the concept of human achievments, engineers are wasting their time in F1. There are much better things to go after then making a internal combustion machine outreach the human ability to drive it.

[DOF_power 0]

Yeah I agree. But this means that F1 shouldn't be faster than CCWS. Even if you let them go a lot faster in F1, CCWS would get to the same point. It's relatively easy to build a car faster than humans can race.

Well, I think we're reasonably close. I don't think you could safely make F1 much more than 10s/lap faster. I remember DC saying that speeds were about right a few years ago, before they were slowed down significantly.

I honestly don't buy that.

The limits, well what about special fighter pilots going 9G maneuvres, or NHRA top fueler drag racerg going 300 mph+. They're using roots superchargers and special fuels, ironical somewhat reminescent of the silver arrows of the 1930s. Besides today's cars are slower vs. 2004, so F1 still has room to go.

[DOF_power 0]

Take a look at these videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b4ww4poizs

Back in the 1930s.

The level of engineering and driver skills were simply reaching super-natural levels. The impossible was made possible.

[Max Mosley 2]

I honestly don't buy that.

I'm not sure whether it's just the 2nd part of my post you don't buy, or the 1st part too. Anyway, I think there's a limit to how fast humans can race cars, and nowadays CCWS could easily get to that point if they wished.

The limits, well what about special fighter pilots going 9G maneuvres, or NHRA top fueler drag racerg going 300 mph+. They're using roots superchargers and special fuels, ironical somewhat reminescent of the silver arrows of the 1930s. Besides today's cars are slower vs. 2004, so F1 still has room to go.

They're different disciplines. Fighter pilots wear g-suits and the stunts we enjoy watching are manoeuvres that have been practised many times before. They're not racing each other wheel to wheel. Drag racers only go in a straight line, so I don't see the relevance. Many people, including many GP drivers, think that the absolute fastest you could go is about 10s/lap faster, and I'm one of those people.

However as long as we have teams we won't get to that point, because the FIA has to slow teams down artificially. We would actually get closer if you scrapped teams.

Back in the 1930s.

The level of engineering and driver skills were simply reaching super-natural levels. The impossible was made possible.

Thanks for the videos. I've watched the 1st, and will watch the others later. Tbh I think you'd have to be an idiot to race those things but they make for amazing stories now.

[DOF_power 0]

I'm not sure whether it's just the 2nd part of my post you don't buy, or the 1st part too. Anyway, I think there's a limit to how fast humans can race cars, and nowadays CCWS could easily get to that point if they wished.

But for me, the limit is far from reached.

They're different disciplines. Fighter pilots wear g-suits and the stunts we enjoy watching are manoeuvres that have been practised many times before. They're not racing each other wheel to wheel. Drag racers only go in a straight line, so I don't see the relevance. Many people, including many GP drivers, think that the absolute fastest you could go is about 10s/lap faster, and I'm one of those people.

So why not give them g-suits, and enclosed c#ckpits to reduce g-forces, and oxigen masks ?!

Simple details.

We would actually get closer if you scrapped teams.

On the contrary, if FIA just gave teams freedom, we'd see a lot faster cars.

Freedom and cutthroat competition the key words.

Thanks for the videos. I've watched the 1st, and will watch the others later. Tbh I think you'd have to be an idiot to race those things but they make for amazing stories now.

The problem is that the F1 cars of today, due to FIA medling, don't seem worthy. They're not fast or technologicaly advanced enough.

And ironicaly, the inferior cars that followed, were responsable for more deaths and injuries that the silver arrows.

Reasons being:

- vastly inferior brakes (till hydraulic disk brakes became standard)

- vastly inferior reliability (since these were british, italian, french, even american cars made in garages for little money)

- in some cases, unexperienced/amateur drivers (vs. the SA elite drivers)

[Max Mosley 2]

But for me, the limit is far from reached.

So why not give them g-suits, and enclosed c#ckpits to reduce g-forces, and oxigen masks ?!

You could do. The argument against it is that people want to see normal people driving cars like they do. Personally I don't care about that, and I would be happy to see g-suits in F1. Even then though, you can't compare racing to doing carefully practised stunts. I doubt 9G would be safe in F1 even with g-suits, but you could get a little higher. There's not much you can do to improve reaction times, which would still be a problem.

On the contrary, if FIA just gave teams freedom, we'd see a lot faster cars.

Freedom and cutthroat competition the key words.

Yes but within about 2/3 years they would be too fast to drive safely. Therefore the FIA has to slow them down. The FIA will do this in very contrived ways which reduce speeds suddenly. This means that speeds in F1 will be much slower than the ultimate limit of human capability.

This wouldn't be the case if the FIA designed their own car, because you could just design it to have exactly the right performance. So although it might surprise you, F1 could easily be faster without the teams and their technical competition.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Boy you sure seem bitter. You seem bent on givng next to no credit to the driver in the race result. You claim that the driver's chance of finishing was 50% so his victory was based on luck. I would say this had nothing to do with driver luck, and everything to do with the ability of the team engineers.

I'm on a Jimmy Clark kick today. Here's a bit from the book 'Jim Clark Racing Legend' that illustrates just how much a driver contributes. The Lotus was thought to be a damned fast car, and it was, but it was only the most skilled that could extract that speed. Jimmy's feats cannot be written off as 'the car':

In 1965 it was wet again and he [Jimmy] was notably solicitous towards Jackie Stewart on his first drive at Spa. Well aware of what his new friend was facing after his own distressing times there, they were running first and second. Clark was leading comfortably, and backed off to conserve the car. Stewart in the BRM caught up, until Clark could see its orange nosecone in his mirrors. He told Graham Gould: "I could see this speck in my mirrors on the straight and I suddenly thought it's pouring with rain, it's Spa, it's an awful place. If Jackie can see me, he'll maybe think he can catch me." With typical gallantry he put in some quick laps to stretch the gap, worried that the less experienced Stewart might risk driving too fast in pursuit.

The evidence is there in Clark's times between laps 19 and 25, when he calmly cut 10 seconds every lap to race ahead of his chum.

F1 viewing numbers are up this year even without Schumacher, Why, because of Lewis Hamilton, a lowly driver who has captured the passion of the sport. A new kid, a fresh face, youngster is the story in F1 right now. You are missing the point on how important the drivers are to the passion of this sport.

Your comment about the Chaparral, was loaded. Again you applaud anything to do with engineering , and have no concept about the humanistic side of the show.

In the concept of human achievments, engineers are wasting their time in F1. There are much better things to go after then making a internal combustion machine outreach the human ability to drive it. You can be the best damn steam locomotive engineer in the world, and in todays world, who cares. So when you realize that little of the engineering work going on at the race track is going into things that advance our society, all that is left is the show. If the show is boring and the engineering advancements, hohum, (in the big scheme of things)what exactly is there worth watching.????

IT's the drivers man. That is what people are interested in. So give them what they want, or face the consequences.

Comments have been made on how slow and boring it has been around the forum lately. You want to know why. MS, JV,JB,DC, even FA and KR in some respect are either gone or performing below the level people expect out of them. All these drivers stirred emotion in people, and this year they are not. The teams and engineers are the same, and yet without that semi-emotional attachment to a driver the show is forgettable.

Indeed.

The level of engineering and driver skills were simply reaching super-natural levels. The impossible was made possible.

I like that you include the driver into that equation. Back in those days, the cars you highlight were indeed fast and they required the most skilled drivers to drive them. In those days the cars still depended on mechanical grip and had no electronic driver's aids to control those beasts on exit. They were fast on the straights but it was all driver skill in the corners. When to brake. When to hit the apex. When to gently coax the throttle on exit. Errors were corrected not with a computer but with reflexes.

The problem is that the F1 cars of today, due to FIA medling, don't seem worthy. They're not fast or technologicaly advanced enough.

And ironicaly, the inferior cars that followed, were responsable for more deaths and injuries that the silver arrows.

Reasons being:

- vastly inferior brakes (till hydraulic disk brakes became standard)

- vastly inferior reliability (since these were british, italian, french, even american cars made in garages for little money)

- in some cases, unexperienced/amateur drivers (vs. the SA elite drivers)

All true and I agree. My main beef with current F1 racing is the focus on aero-grip, not innovation. Aero-grip is smoke and mirrors. It's imaginary grip. It is dependent on speed and air, both of which are in a state of constant flux during a race. Mechanical grip is sure, dependable. Mechanical grip is the hooker that lays you but never changes her rates.