F1 - Then vs. Now

JRS

JRS

JRS

Soldato
Joined
6 Jun 2004
Posts
19,729
Location
Burton-on-Trent
Just for Skeeter, since he seems to feel quite strongly about keeping stuff like this out of race weekend threads:

Skeeter said:
Any chance we can create a "F1 should be like it was in 'the old days'" thread and keep all chat about how modern F1 is rubbish compared to <insert decade here> in there? It would make reading the modern F1 threads actually bearable and worth the effort as they wouldn't be routinely trashed by arguments about by gone eras?
Click to expand...

Skeeter said:
I would rather read race comments and lol driver discussions relevant to that race than wade through yet another argument that F1 from X decade was better and modern F1 is rubbish.

I am actually surprised half the people in these threads bother to watch modern F1 if its clearly so inferior to their 'good old years'.
Click to expand...

First things first - my position:

The last season that I really found myself bored by was 2008. Several reasons for this - the Lewis-teria displayed by people on here and by the ITV commentary team, the on-track action at the front of the field being mostly sub-par, and fact that F1 was still persisting with grooved tyres along with the cars having reached the peak of their over-winged phase. I didn't even bother watching the final race live. When I saw it later, I thought it was blatantly obvious that Hamilton would get through to win the title - judging by the commentary on here, I was in a minority. Hey ho.

Then 2009 rolled around, and almost everything improved. Slick tyres back, reduced aero, much better commentary (yes, even taking Legard into account) and broadcasting, and I remembered why I've been watching F1 for so long. It was enjoyable again.

So F1 now is perfect then?

Not even nearly.

For starters, F1 is supposed to showcase automotive and racing technology. There are diesel rep-mobiles with more technology in their chassis than in a Formula One car these days. I'm not saying that I want to see ABS or fully automatic gearchanges and the like back. In fact, I'd rather that they went back to a proper H-pattern shifter for the gearbox since that would bring back a skill that was lost in the early '90s. But I would like to see active ride back, in conjunction with a ground effect floor design. And actually, now that we have common ECUs in the cars it might be time to look at traction control again, and see if it can be reintroduced in a form that still allows the cars some slip (i.e. how it used to work before the systems were perfected!).

There are other things, too. The front wings are still far too fussy, the cars still far too dependent on them. KERS at present is nothing more than a push-to-pass button that doesn't always work (or a push-to-defend button that is completely negated by the DRS). I hate the fact that engine configurations are locked to V8s. And I hate the inconsistency (and sometimes blatant stupidity) of the race stewards and FIA.

So what could we have back, really?

Not much. The world has changed, and stuff that makes motor racing exciting also can make it dangerous. No-one wants to go back to the days where there was a very real chance of more than one driver not making it to the end of the season without having a career-ending injury or getting killed.

The costs have escalated as well, and there's much less incentive for sponsors to pay for it all. In an effort to promote competitive racing, the FIA have blocked many avenues of development that could have real world applications one day so the motor manufacturers really aren't all that interested in lobbing money at it.

And yet....wouldn't it be great if F1 2011 was a bit more like F1 1991? There was a mix of V8s, V10s and V12s on the grid. Some of the cars sported such exotic details as active ride. The aero bits weren't as complex as a degree-level mathematics textbook. There were 19 teams trying to qualify at each race. Eight different engine manufacturers involved, some with more than one design in the field. 41 drivers would show up over the course of the 16 race season. And you had to do something really bad to get yourself DQ'd or penalised, not just a bit of gentle moving around on-track.

People like F1 as it is. That's fine. I'm enjoying this season so far as well. But there are a few things that I did prefer from 'back in the day', and it's a shame that we can't have some of them back with us.
 
JRS said:
And yet....wouldn't it be great if F1 2011 was a bit more like F1 1991? There was a mix of V8s, V10s and V12s on the grid. Some of the cars sported such exotic details as active ride. The aero bits weren't as complex as a degree-level mathematics textbook. There were 19 teams trying to qualify at each race. Eight different engine manufacturers involved, some with more than one design in the field. 41 drivers would show up over the course of the 16 race season. And you had to do something really bad to get yourself DQ'd or penalised, not just a bit of gentle moving around on-track.
Click to expand...

The problem with restricting aerodynamics is that everybody manages to find a way around the rules.

Look at the double diffuser, and then this year with the whole flexi wing argument.

The only way to stop the teams weasing out of the aero is to go one make style, and to have a fixed design that everybody must use.

But this stiffles innovation and kills what F1 has now become.

Trouble is, give them the innovation back, and the teams will find a way to replace whatever you take away.

It would be nice, but it can't be done.
 
I stopped watching full races in 1999, hence me previously saying on here that 1997 was the most interesting season in my opinion.

This race being the high point in terms of excitement and unexpected results:


Boy did signing up Heinz-Harald turn out to be a mistake, Frank...

As for 1991, wasn't old enough to appreciate the sport back then :p
 
I disagree they don't find ways around airo, double diffuser was, flexible wing doesn't creat dirty air like the double diffuser did. So it's just rules rather than a problem, aero has been reduced as has the dirty air and can be further reduced. 2013 will see ground effect, which has two benefits, it doesn't create dirty air and isn't affected by dirty air compared to standard aero. This will be supplemented by reduced aero, I imagine just smaller and tighter regs. There is no need for standard body work.

Teams will spend every penny they have, at the moment the biggest and pretty much only gain is from aero. With further restrictions and ground effect, will solve some problems. You then need to look at what teams can spend money on. If they can spend 1 million and get 0.005 seconds a lap from aero or would. They spend 1 million and get 0.050 seconds from say kers. Aero is well understood and as such it costs huge amounts for very little gain.


What we need is money to be diverted to practical useful technology. Kers is a great. Addition to f1, but totally useless in it's current state, de-restrict the power, time and usage. This will bring money in from outside manufacturers. They also seriously need to look at alternative fuel types and include them in the rules. Sound is great but I don't watch f1 for the sound, I watch it because it's cutting edge technology and that is alternative fuels.

We have lost the technological aspect of f1 and with that you have limited teams to aero, aero, aero which has caused the problems.

Can't wait for 2013 and I so hope DRS dies a quick and sudden death. It is not sporrting, is not needed and a waste of time.

I still enjoy and will continue to watch f1 but they need to solve the problem not add spectacles that are crap and amount to basically cheatining.

Edit -
Ps.
I love the tyres, this is a team sport and strategy I feel is very much part of it, however how long we will see races. Like this remains to be seen. I really do thing towards the end of the season when they have loads of data and at differing temps, teams won't be messing up nearly as much.
 
Last edited:
MrLOL said:
snip
Click to expand...

Ban front wings, allow ground-effect floors, limit rear wing to single element, let teams go with whatever weight balance front:rear they need. Job done. Don't need to make it a spec series to limit aero push issues. In fact, some of the worst offenders for aero-induced understeer are spec-bodywork series.

The FIA clamped down on the spending on engines by introducing the homologation rule. In theory, not a completely hideous idea - stops power levels getting out of hand, makes teams aim for reliability, thus reducing costs. In practice, it means that teams spend enough money to start a small nuclear war (or a truly vast ordinary war) on fiddly little aero pieces, which leads to problems with dirty air, and we're back to aero push. In addition, it means that there's very little incentive for motor manufacturers to get involved in making engines for the formula.

We're now down to four engines in F1:

1) Ferrari 056 V8
2) Mercedes FO 108Y V8
3) Renault RS27-2011 V8
4) Cosworth CA2011 V8

Yet you go back ten years, and the situation is a bit different:

1) Honda RA121E V12
2) Honda 101E V10
3) Renault RS3 V10
4) Yamaha OX99 V12
5) Porsche 3512 V12
6) Ford Cosworth DFR V8
7) Judd EV V8
8) Ilmor 2175 V10
9) Ford HB5 V8
10) Judd GV V8
11) Ferrari 037 V12
12) Ford HB4 V8
13) Lamborghini 3512 V12

No-one can think that this is a good thing, right?

A GP car these days sounds utterly awesome, make no mistake. The only thing that sounds even more awesome is a Top Fuel dragster (seriously, if you ever get a chance - see how long you can stand in-between a couple of them in the paddock getting revved up!). But the only variation you get now is if one has a stupid exhaust setup. A decade ago, you had some very distinct sounds on the grid. Growling V8s. Screaming V10s. Howling V12s. And you could easily hear the difference between, say, a Judd V8 and a Cossie V8 as well.
 
AcidHell2 said:
I disagree they don't find ways around airo, double diffuser was, flexible wing doesn't creat dirty air like the double diffuser did. So it's just rules rather than a problem, aero has been reduced as has the dirty air and can be further reduced. 2013 will see ground effect, which has two benefits, it doesn't create dirty air and isn't affected by dirty air compared to standard aero. This will be supplemented by reduced aero, I imagine just smaller and tighter regs. There is no need for standard body work.
Click to expand...

your logic makes sense, but i don't see how it will bring back the F1 of old wherby all of a sudden everybody is able to overtake everybody else without the need for DRS / KERS or other "artificial" trickery.

I mean what about the tyres debate, assuming we ditch the current rubber that runs out too quick, won't having rubber that lasts forever mean that nobodys tyres ever run out and people just never pitstop ?
 
JRS said:
No-one can think that this is a good thing, right?

A GP car these days sounds utterly awesome, make no mistake. The only thing that sounds even more awesome is a Top Fuel dragster (seriously, if you ever get a chance - see how long you can stand in-between a couple of them in the paddock getting revved up!). But the only variation you get now is if one has a stupid exhaust setup. A decade ago, you had some very distinct sounds on the grid. Growling V8s. Screaming V10s. Howling V12s. And you could easily hear the difference between, say, a Judd V8 and a Cossie V8 as well.
Click to expand...

Half of the names on that list will never grace F1 again.

And we can't force them to make engines for F1.
 
Kers isn't artificial, less dirty air means closer following. We however will not get racing of old, there was to many differences between the cars, each being strong and week in loads of areas, unlike modern f1 with extremely same designs. However there is and will be more overtaking and no need for systems like DRS.
 
MrLOL said:
Half of the names on that list will never grace F1 again.

And we can't force them to make engines for F1.
Click to expand...

But if alternative fuels, kers and other technology was opened up, you would get a hole load of new names in the sport, it is a great and relatively cheap test bed, with a bonus of advertising.
 
Last edited:
Wow I didn't know they where thinking of de-restricting energy recovery for 2013, I'm now wetting myself with excitement. Watch this entire video it's great and what I've been saying f1 should be doing, I didn't realise they where.
 
AcidHell2 said:
But if alternative fuels, kers and other technology was opened up, you would get a hole load of new names in the sport, it is a great and relatively cheap test bed, with a bonus of advertising.
Click to expand...

but isn't the lack of any testing whats making the current KERS so hard to get right for most of the teams ?

I'm not convinced de-restricting the KERS development would suddenly bring engine manufacturers flocking to F1.
 
AcidHell2 said:
But if alternative fuels, kers and other technology was opened up, you would get a hole load of new names in the sport, it is a great and relatively cheap test bed, with a bonus of advertising.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that for a minute. F1 is too expensive to bother with worrying about being a test bed. You also can no longer do testing like ferrari and mclaren used to.

The milage is too limited to be a test bed. Engine manufacturers could do the testing themselves far quicker, easier and cheaper.

It won't bring new people to the sport because the costs are no longer 1997 realistic. The same with sponsors, they used to say daily that the big companies where holdingh off because they didn't want to be assosiated with ciggerettes. The ciggie money went and it was not replaced in anything like the levels.

The budgets are far too huge in comparison to williams sub 40 million in 97, even taking into account inflation. Gets the budgets down and there would be much more interest for companies putting in reasonable amounts of investment.

Plus f1 doesn't sell cars even for the manufacturers, so the investment doesn't pay dividends.
 
Of course you get new companies come in there is huge amounts spent on such systems, f1 is a good testbed as long as the rules are open enough.

It doesn't sell cars but didn't say it did.
 
Am i being ignorant or is Ground effect not a form of Aero anyways?

I know that flat floors were introduced and side skirts banned to combat the effect, but the clever car designers always find ways around things e.g double diffusers.

Surely the reintroduction of Ground Effect is just going to play more into the hands of the aero lovers than the people lobbying for more mechanical grip and more real world applications?
 
sr4470 said:
I stopped watching full races in 1999, hence me previously saying on here that 1997 was the most interesting season in my opinion.

This race being the high point in terms of excitement and unexpected results:


Boy did signing up Heinz-Harald turn out to be a mistake, Frank...

As for 1991, wasn't old enough to appreciate the sport back then :p
Click to expand...

I got bored after 1 min of watching this. no offence mate but a car broken isn't going to win is it.
 
zootfloot said:
Am i being ignorant or is Ground effect not a form of Aero anyways?
Click to expand...

It is, but it's much less sensitive to dirty air. The idea is to stop the cars from washing out into understeer when they try and follow another one closely through a medium-to-high speed turn. Then they'd be close enough to get into the slipstream and be in with a chance of overtaking without a flappy rear wing than can only be used in specific scenarios at the say-so of Race Control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom