KSaiyu
God that was boring. Again. Qualifying was better as usual, and if anyone from F1 saw the Moto GP race earlier PLEASE could you try to make it as interesting as that (and I don't even like bikes in the first place).
There are several reasons why modern F1 racing will never be as close as MotoGP.
Firstly, modern F1 cars are very heavily reliant on aerodynamic downforce for their grip and performance. MotoGP bikes don't (AFAIK) produce any downforce at all. When you have a vehicle that's very reliant on downforce travelling closely behind another vehicle, the following car will be in the turbulent or dirty air coming off the back of the vehicle in front. The air has been worked very hard over the vehicle in front and when it comes off the back wing it is very badly disturbed and won't produce the same levels of downforce for the following vehicle. In current F1 it's generally accepted that a car travelling within 1 second of the car in front will suffer from this dirty air and the resultant lack of downforce. This means that it's difficult to follow the car in front especially through high speed turns. In MotoGP, there isn't the same problem of dirty air, bikes can follow each other closely through turns without losing any appreciable degree of performance.
Secondly, cars are much wider than bikes. Put two MotoGP bikes side by side on the track and they'll take up less room than a single F1 car. Most modern tracks are fairly wide, but on most tracks there won't be much room left when you put two F1 cars side by side. This lack of space means that it's more difficult in F1 to get two cars side by side into, through, or out of a turn. This, in part, leads to the processional nature of F1. Also, when you have two drivers side by side through a corner, obviously one of them will have to travel a further distance round the outside of the corner than the other. Due to the width of the cars, if you're alongside someone else your inside wheels will be at least two metres outside of their inside wheels. In MotoGP, you can regularly see riders go side by side round corners within the same metre or so of track. The difference in extra distance the F1 car and MotoGP bikes have to go means the driver on the outside is further disadvantaged in F1.
Thirdly, F1 cars stop a lot quicker than MotoGP bikes do. I don't have any braking distance figures for MotoGP bikes, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they needed twice the distance F1 cars do to stop for the same corners. If someone could provide any braking distance data for modern MotoGP bikes at circuits the F1 cars visit, I'd appreciate that. Not only do bikes have a much smaller contact patch than F1 cars (two skinny tyres versus four huge ones), but hard braking on any bike causes the rear to lift, decreasing the effectiveness of the rear brake. There's also the possibility of locking the front wheel under braking on a MotoGP bike, not a pretty sight if you've ever seen it. MotoGP bikes are often quicker at the end of long straights than F1 cars, due to their comparative lack of drag, so this added straightline speed is also a contributing factor. If you want to overtake an F1 car under braking, you'll have to make up a large portion (or all) of the several metres length of an F1 car (I think it's somewhere around 4.5 metres currently, but I'm having trouble finding an exact figure). If the braking zone is only 75 metres long, you have to be about 6% better than the person you're trying to overtake on the brakes. 6% might not sound like a lot, but remember that the braking systems are all very similar and all the cars weigh the same, so unless you're on fresh tyres or carrying less fuel you're not likely to be able to make up that 6% difference. Now, in MotoGP, the bikes are obviously a lot shorter than F1 cars and the braking zones are much longer. As I said before, I don't have any braking distance data for MotoGP bikes, so I can only speculate on how much better you have to be on the brakes than the other rider, but assuming the braking distance is double that of F1 and the bikes are roughly half the length of F1 cars, you only have to be 1-2% better than the other ride on the brakes.
Fourthly, it's much easier to accelerate in F1 than it is in MotoGP. As I said before, F1 cars have a lot more grip, but they also have advanced traction control systems which serve to effectively take the driver out of the equation and equalise the acceleration of the cars. Some cars are obviously more powerful than others and some have better traction but they're largely the same. You very rarely see modern F1 cars passing other cars on acceleration out of corners (in fact, when the BARs were able to do just that a couple of years ago they were amazed because it was so unusual). MotoGP bikes, on the other hand, are much more difficult to power out of corners. Yes, they have traction control systems, but the riders still play a big part in the equation, unlike F1. You can still see the riders struggling to keep the front wheel down under hard acceleration. This more difficult acceleration leaves an opportunity for the better riders to get runs on the people in front out of corners, because they control the throttle better.
Lastly, F1 cars are a lot quicker than MotoGP bikes, something in the region of 30 seconds per lap at Barcelona. I'm not saying that MotoGP bikes are easier to ride than F1 cars are to drive but when you're travelling at a much higher average speed, you have less time to react to incidents ahead of you.
Might aswell post something on-topic now
I'm happy to see Schumacher winning but ideally Massa and one or two of the Toyotas would have been between Schumacher and Alonso. Still, 10 points is 10 points.
Assuming that’s the problem, and that they didn’t actually run the engine with the washer in it…
Go Schumi! Keep it up! 17 points behind now! Come on Hockenheim!
