A question for long-time F1 fans

[ukfan758]

I would have to say the worst things that have happened to F1 are Bernie Ecclestone controlling F1, Hermann Tilke becoming lead track designer, and the idiots who dropped the engines to V8s and now to V6s. All have destroyed F1.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I would have to say the worst things that have happened to F1 are Bernie Ecclestone controlling F1, Hermann Tilke becoming lead track designer, and the idiots who dropped the engines to V8s and now to V6s. All have destroyed F1.

Formula One arguably wouldn't be as big as it is today, thanks to Ecclestone. Some might say there would be no F1 if Ecclestone wasn't in control. And you can't blame Tilke for all the safety regulations imposed by the FIA, or the "dull" plots which are out of his control. The new powerplants are a matter of opinion. Personally, I like them. The cars will be a bit more of a handful to drive and the top speeds will be higher, what more could you want without slowing them down or making them too unsafe?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I would have to say the worst things that have happened to F1 are Bernie Ecclestone controlling F1, Hermann Tilke becoming lead track designer, and the idiots who dropped the engines to V8s and now to V6s. All have destroyed F1.

@Cap'n Jack replied well enough, I'll add that if manufacturers aren't forced into creating engines (and power units) that are vastly more economical then they simply won't be around any more. Like it or not the planet and its resources cannot support our habits.

Five years ago that made me very nervous, but now when I look at 2014 F1 cars (800+ bhp from a 1.6!), or a McLaren P1, or a Porsche Mmmm*, it makes me very happy.


*Can't remember what it's called, but close enough.

 

[Inferno251]

I think adding DRS really hurt the image of the sport. Its certainly one of the sillier gimmicks I've ever seen in racing.

I just don't get DRS, because every time I think about it I ask to myself why it is deemed acceptable in terms of aerodynamic technology and innovation, when you had both the ground effect and the fan car that are not? .
And seriously, doesn't the fact that some of the unique innovations and technology that have occurred over the years (such as the 16-cylinder BRM's and the 6-wheeled Tyrell P34) that were eventually outlawed, contradict the idea of F1 as exploring (and in these cases experimenting) with new and innovative technologies?

Clearly I have no idea...

Also the new rules for 2009 that made the cars look terrible, and of course the 2014 rules that caused the cars to sprout the uspeakable

Definitely this. The F1 cars of the 90's and the 2000's (including my childhood hero the Ferrari F2002) are amongst the most beautiful looking F1 cars that have existed. Ever since 2009, the cars have looked plain ugly, and as.for the 2014 cars, don't get me started on them...

 

[Ganon83]

And seriously, doesn't the fact that some of the unique innovations and technology that have occurred over the years (such as the 16-cylinder BRM's and the 6-wheeled Tyrell P34) that were eventually outlawed, contradict the idea of F1 as exploring (and in these cases experimenting) with new and innovative technologies?

Yeah, I've always felt F1 shouldn't have as big a technical rulebook as, say, NASCAR. Just set a BHP/weight limit and a few other things (Mostly safety wise), let the teams play around a little bit

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

How dare no one give you crash-gate as a wonderful source of controversy that still is talked about and wondered to this day.

 

[TheEnd35000vr]

There are certain Grand Prixs you can look up if you want specific controversies/incidents.

1976 German Grand Prix - Laudas near death causing new safety regs.
1984 Dallas Grand Prix - Rosbergs aforementioned race.
1989 Japanese Grand Prix - Senna & Prost.
1994 San Marino Grand Prix - Near-death of Barrichello and deaths of Ratzenburger & Senna.
1994 Australian Grand Prix - Hill & Schumacher.
1997 European Grand Prix - Villeneuve & Schumacher.
2002 Austrian Grand Prix - Team orders with Barrichello & Schumacher.
2003 Brazillian Grand Prix - Alonso & Webbers massive crash.
2005 United States Grand Prix - Michelin tyres deemed too dangerous and 6 Bridgestone cars race.
2006 Monaco Grand Prix - Schumachers block in qualifying.
2007 Canadian Grand Prix - Kubicas massive crash.
2008 Singapore Grand Prix - Massas fuel hose & Crashgate with Piquet Jr. and Renault.
2009 Brazillian Grand Prix - Rain delayed the entire weekend.
2011 Canadian Grand Prix - Buttons incredible fightback with Vettel.
2013 British Grand Prix - The 4 Pirelli tyre failures.

Cant remember many others, plenty more to fish out.

 

[CinnamonOD]

I'd say the 2005 US GP too, the spygate and Singapore 2008

 

[niky]

I just don't get DRS, because every time I think about it I ask to myself why it is deemed acceptable in terms of aerodynamic technology and innovation, when you had both the ground effect and the fan car that are not? .
And seriously, doesn't the fact that some of the unique innovations and technology that have occurred over the years (such as the 16-cylinder BRM's and the 6-wheeled Tyrell P34) that were eventually outlawed, contradict the idea of F1 as exploring (and in these cases experimenting) with new and innovative technologies?

Clearly I have no idea...

DRS, when it fails, is supposed to fail in the closed, higher downforce position
(except, of course,, when the wing simply rips off).

When a ground-effects car goes over a kerb, it suffers a catastrophic loss of downforce. When a fan car's fans lose power, even without a kerb, the same thing happens.

 

[Inferno251]

DRS, when it fails, is supposed to fail in the closed, higher downforce position
(except, of course,, when the wing simply rips off).

When a ground-effects car goes over a kerb, it suffers a catastrophic loss of downforce. When a fan car's fans lose power, even without a kerb, the same thing happens.

So it's basically a safer movable aerodynamic part then.

But out of curiosity, what are the chances of a failure due to mechanical problems, of any of these components?

 

[Dolph Drago]

There are certain Grand Prixs you can look up if you want specific controversies/incidents.

1994 San Marino Grand Prix - Near-death of Barrichello and deaths of Ratzenburger & Senna.
.

Not to mention the wreck at the start, with parts flying into the stands. And a wheel bouncing down pit road when it wasn't properly attached after a pit stop, injuring some crew members. That whole weekend was just horrible.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So it's basically a safer movable aerodynamic part then.

But out of curiosity, what are the chances of a failure due to mechanical problems, of any of these components?

IT happened a bit last year where DRS failed, Ferrari comes to mind instantly and they just stopped working, I think it stayed open and they had to fix it. I don't remember the full details of the race but Alonso was fast.

Anywho, in regards to moving aero, it is probably the safest piece compared to F-duct and especially a fan. Though I'd be willing to bet the fan car could be safely implemented in today's world.

 

[TheEnd35000vr]

Not to mention the wreck at the start, with parts flying into the stands. And a wheel bouncing down pit road when it wasn't properly attached after a pit stop, injuring some crew members. That whole weekend was just horrible.

Correct. Worst weekend in the sports history surely.

 

[Imari]

@Cap'n Jack replied well enough, I'll add that if manufacturers aren't forced into creating engines (and power units) that are vastly more economical then they simply won't be around any more. Like it or not the planet and its resources cannot support our habits.

If I may just quickly, the engines in the actual car are the smallest part of the smallest part of the environmental damage created by F1. They could be using the world's most inefficient and gas guzzling engines in the cars, and it would be a blip on the radar compared to what goes on to transport however many tons of gear from country to country every couple of weeks.

Trucks, trailers, motorhomes, aeroplanes, all travelling potentially thousands of miles carrying tons and tons of gear. Big fuel cost compare to one car going around for a couple of hours.

The engine efficiency thing is about marketing. It's cool that the engines are something slightly more relevant to the everyday user (next, rotaries please!), but don't be fooled into thinking that the engine change is going to do the first thing to save the planet.


Sorry for the off-topic, but F1 is never really going to be eco-friendly as long as it's travelling all over the world.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If I may just quickly, the engines in the actual car are the smallest part of the smallest part of the environmental damage created by F1. They could be using the world's most inefficient and gas guzzling engines in the cars, and it would be a blip on the radar compared to what goes on to transport however many tons of gear from country to country every couple of weeks.

Trucks, trailers, motorhomes, aeroplanes, all travelling potentially thousands of miles carrying tons and tons of gear. Big fuel cost compare to one car going around for a couple of hours.

The engine efficiency thing is about marketing. It's cool that the engines are something slightly more relevant to the everyday user (next, rotaries please!), but don't be fooled into thinking that the engine change is going to do the first thing to save the planet.


Sorry for the off-topic, but F1 is never really going to be eco-friendly as long as it's travelling all over the world.

Not at all, you make a good point. I once read that one of Bernie's 747s uses as much fuel getting from the ramp to the sky as all the F1 cars do over a season. I've no idea if that's close to being true but the relative quantities are probably right.

The thing is; sports like Nascar, F1, Indy, WRC, they do inform development and they show the state-of-the art for particular types of technology. Race-sunday-sell-monday still works for the companies involved.

Car companies have to (by law) bring down the overall emissions of their vehicles, that means low-weight high-efficiency cars, and the more performance you want to extract (cos noone wants slow cars) then the more space-age you have to become. That's the only reason that F1 brought the 1.6 turbo engines in.

The fuel saved by F1 is minimal, it's a scientific exercise that means nothing when you look at the energy spent designing and cooking two F1 cars and racing them over 4,000 miles in 20 locations, just for the telly. The offset to engine and vehicle development is huge - and not restricted to petroleum ICE combinations.

 

[niky]

New F1 rules:

-Cars have to be driven to and from races.
---For races outside Europe, cars have to drive to catch the ferry.
---All spare parts must be towed by the two racing cars entering the next event.
-Engines must last several races, lubricated by nothing more than Mobil1 0w20 oil, changed every 5,000 kilometers.
-All cars must use regular pump gas or diesel.
-All cars have to be street legal. Headlights must be bright enough to be usable on the road. The cars must clear a sleeping policeman. Cars must meet pedestrian and passenger safety requirements and any requirements preventing razor sharp wings or winglets extending beyond the car's corners.
-Cars must be offered for sale to other teams and to the buying public at the end of the season. Maximum price of one million dollars or euros. Teams may copy parts after each season, if they wish.
-No other rules.

 

[Grayfox]

New F1 rules:
Cars must meet pedestrian and passenger safety requirements.

Seems to pass for me.

Car suffered little to no damage, fan is carried away unharmed.

 

[Pupik]

Car suffered little to no damage, fan is carried away unharmed.

For every stupid fan that escaped long enough to tell a story, there's an unfortunate Tom Pryce and an unwitting marshal to go with that. Which is also a really low moment in the sport. There's also the 1953 Argentine GP and the 1961 Italian GP in which several fans were killed.

In cases of pure dumb-assery by a so-called fan, electroshock therapy via ungrounded KERS may be imposed.

 

[Ganon83]

I really don't want to put death on a (mostly comedy) website.
I mean, maybe if it's due to some dumb rule made by the sanctioning body (I can promise everybody reading this that NASCAR isn't going to change their insanely dangerous group qualifying until somebody gets hurt at the very least), but it isn't the point

 

[TenEightyOne]

I really don't want to put death on a (mostly comedy) website.
I mean, maybe if it's due to some dumb rule made by the sanctioning body (I can promise everybody reading this that NASCAR isn't going to change their insanely dangerous group qualifying until somebody gets hurt at the very least), but it isn't the point

Maybe that should go in a Nascar thread? I wasn't sure what you meant?