Formula 1 is Broken?

Skeeter

Skeeter

Skeeter

Caporegime
Joined
8 Mar 2007
Posts
37,146
Location
Surrey
In my opinion, phrases such as below should NEVER be heard during an F1 broadcast, and F1 is broken until they fix it. Am I right?

"A team telling a driver to look after his brakes before they have even reached half distance"

"A driver saying they were having to nurse the car home for the final 20 laps"

"A driver being able to do 77 laps of a 78 lap race on the same tyres, and only because he had to use both sets"

"The tyres at a track being described as being able to "go round and round all day for a 170 laps if they wanted""

"A driver backing off 10 laps from the end to "secure his position""

"A driver comming in for his one and only stop after less than 10 laps"

This is F1, not endurance racing!
 
they should allow different engine types but with restrictions.

turbo- but only allowed 6cylinders and a max of 2.5liters

NA- unrestricted

supercharged- maximum of 8 cylinders and 3.5 liters
 
The thing with the brakes is the only serious one IMO - brakes shouldn't be a marginal component even in F1.

In terms of tyres it seems right that in an era with no refuelling there should be an option of a slower tyre that can last the race, but it should be balanced by the less robust softer tyre being enough quicker to mitigate the extra pit stops over the race distance. Having to run both compounds is counterproductive though, as everyone is going to one stop unless they run into issues.
 
I don't agree. F1 is as much about endurance as it is speed. The fastest driver doesn't always win the championship. Red Bull have been consistently fast but let down by several technical failures this year.

The challenge is just as much in consistency and reliability as it is going fast. The pinnacle of motor racing demands engines that can do up to 18k RPM for many race hours as well as a raft of other bits like tyres that have to cope with extreme stress. I find that much more impressive if they can last a race distance than if it were a sprint race. There's a trade-off to be found, and I think that makes it interesting as well as exciting.
 
Theres a big difference between reliability and running the same tyres for 99% of the race and taking it easy because gunning it and destroying them wont buy you enough time for the extra pit stop.#

I fully agree consistency and reliability is key. Red Bull could well loose another championship due to poor reliability. But having everyone pit on lap 10 for the hard tyres and then just cruise round for 50 laps saving their brakes and making there tyres last is just boring.

Every time I hear a radio communication going "look after the tyres" or "go easy on the brakes" I die a little inside...
 
You should watch destruction derby instead, that sounds as if it'd be more up your alley!

What is this big difference you say is present between reliability and wrecking your tyres? The race strategy is important in governing how the speed of the car can be used reliably over a race distance. It's a part of real motor racing in any form, from tuning the engine to pit stops. It's not like a computer game where you can just go all out and restart should things not go well!
 
alexhull24 said:
You should watch destruction derby instead, that sounds as if it'd be more up your alley!

What is this big difference you say is present between reliability and wrecking your tyres? The race strategy is important in governing how the speed of the car can be used reliably over a race distance. It's a part of real motor racing in any form, from tuning the engine to pit stops. It's not like a computer game where you can just go all out and restart should things not go well!
Click to expand...

Your ideals of F1 would make much more sense if there was pleanty of on track overtaking.

Fact is, there isnt.

When its difficult to overtake on the track, and theres no oportunity to overtake off the track (i.e. pit strategy) then what we end up with is processions.

There needs to be something that allows a driver to be substantially faster than the guy in front. In the past, that was fuel load. 3 stop sprints vs 1 stop long games. Something that allowed someone to be 2 seconds a lap faster than the guy infront.

Now that variable has gone, we need another to replace it, and we dont have it. The tyres need to be engineered in such a way that nailing the super softs for 15 laps will get you a 30 second advantage over the guys on the hards to allow for your extra stops. But as that simply doesnt exist, we end up with all the field pitting at the same time, for the same tyres, then making them last the whole rest of the race.

Its why I fully supported the suggested 2 stop rule that was toyed with at the beginning of the year. If you force the drivers to 2 stop, then there is absolutely no chance of them destroying the tyres in a single stint even if they go mental on them, so they can then push like mad for the whole race with none of this "nurse the tyres home" attitude that is crushing any excitement in the second half of any race.
 
Last edited:
malc30 said:
When they built Lotus back in the day they built them to fall apart the minute they crossed the line, Anything more was over engineering.
Wake up !!!
Click to expand...

Colin Chapman theory of race car design:

If a part breaks, it was too light.

If a part doesn't break, it was too heavy.
 
malc30 said:
When they built Lotus back in the day they built them to fall apart the minute they crossed the line, Anything more was over engineering.
Wake up !!!
Click to expand...

That is how to build a race car. Unfortunately, Lotus often got the calculations wrong. ;) Still, it's easier to make a fast car reliable than a reliable car fast.

Classic story with the Lotus 25 was that Chapman got in it one day during the initial build and found it not only comfortable, but spacious. He then told the guys it was too large and got a couple of inches taken out of the width. :D

Simplify and add lightness.
 
Duke said:
*waits for usual rose tinted glasses replies about F1 being so amazing before the 90s and that technology should go backwards*
Click to expand...

Technology should go forwards. This is the pinnacle of motorsport. So how come I can buy a Mondeo with more electronic driver aids than a Formula One car?

Bring back active ride, TC, ABS, allow 4WD, allow more than four wheels, allow turbos with an equivalency formula, allow diesels, allow rotary engines, allow any cylinder config, allow gas turbines, allow hybrids....start a ******* arms race again.

Then you'll see some useful technology come out the other end. Sure, a few teams will go out of business trying. But if you cannot stand the heat, you should vacate the cooking area post-haste.
 
There is an overtaking problem in F1, though I think you're confusing different issues here. Pit strategy changes would lead to more overtaking in the pits rather than on track, as that's the most efficient way for teams to win a race or make up places.

We commonly see large speed differentials in cars but they get stuck in the 'dirty air' zone within a second of the lead car, and progress slows. This has improved in 2010, but not enough to allow more overtaking. If you want lots of overtaking and close racing, lower classes of racing are more suited to this, as aerodynamic effects are less important and races are much shorter.

This is a different issue to looking after brakes or tyres in a race. The kind of F1 you want is a dumbed down version leaving just the overtaking and crashes. I think there's a lot more to the sport than that.
 
alexhull24 said:
There is an overtaking problem in F1, though I think you're confusing different issues here. Pit strategy changes would lead to more overtaking in the pits rather than on track, as that's the most efficient way for teams to win a race or make up places.

We commonly see large speed differentials in cars but they get stuck in the 'dirty air' zone within a second of the lead car, and progress slows. This has improved in 2010, but not enough to allow more overtaking. If you want lots of overtaking and close racing, lower classes of racing are more suited to this, as aerodynamic effects are less important and races are much shorter.

This is a different issue to looking after brakes or tyres in a race. The kind of F1 you want is a dumbed down version leaving just the overtaking and crashes. I think there's a lot more to the sport than that.
Click to expand...

I watch a lot of motorsport, for very different reasons. I agree, watching crashes and argy bargy overtakes is what touring cars is for.

But the though that the top drivers at the top of motorsport are doing anything other than being on the absolute limit for 100% of the race just ruins it a bit for me.

I dont want to see the drivers going around 2 seconds a lap slower than they could do because thats how they win the race. We are now in the situation where pushing 100% for every lap would mean you didnt win the race, and were beaten buy a guy cruising for 50% of the race. Surely thats wrong?
 
No, that's just beating the competition comprehensively. You can't ask all drivers to push 100% the whole way, they already do to the best of their ability. I'm sure if you asked anyone in F1 they'd agree with that. Looking after your car has to scale down your speed so you're now doing 100% of what you're able to do whilst still finishing. This is an extra element to the racing, meaning drivers have to manage their cars, and getting this right can give large rewards, such as Vettel cruising to the finish or Hamilton managing his brakes today. I wouldn't say he wasn't giving 100%, I'm sure he was doing that with what he's been given. If he carried on, his brakes would have exploded and race over. Nobody wants that.
 
You say it's not endurance racing, but you want more reliable cars? In racing, if it's reliable; it's too heavy.

As for the tyres thing, when you must carry all your fuel for the race sometimes it's not an advantage to pit for tyres, often it is. So maybe the using both tyres rule could do with being dropped. As for not refuelling, it was mostly a safety thing, people have been hurt by re-fuelling accidents.

Anyway before 1982 everybody would do the whole race on one tank and one set of tyres. Pit stops are quite young. Invented by Bernie Ecclestone too:


I'm pretty sure it wasn't endurance racing back then...
 
All of your quotes refer to Monaco, and today's racing at that. Monaco is a special case. It's not indicative of a season's worth of F1, no single track really is.

So in answer, no, it's not broken. We've had some quality races so far this season and the championship is very much alive. Question answered, fears alleviated.
 
gord said:
We've had some quality races so far this season and the championship is very much alive
Click to expand...

Only due to wet weather and less so reliability.
If we had all dry races it would have been pretty boring.

They so need to restrict aero and unleash engine and other mechanical/speed development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom