Driver aids in formula one. What changes would you make?

[wee_man]

Well I apologise if this has been done before, but I couldn't find one, so what are you opinions then?
Personally I'd like to see them go and give the control back to the drivers.

Also if you guys could change F1 for the better to improve the racing how would you do it and what would you do?

I would personally increase the braking distances for cars and decrease the aerodynamics on the cars. I would see how that woukd work out and then decide whether more changes need implementing.

 

[vat_man]

- get rid of traction and launch control. I don't like the idea of a standard ECU, since it could chase electronics companies out of the sport, but I can't think how else they could police it
- eliminate electronic throttles, and return to the good old cable between accelerator and engine
- simply the aerodynamics to just a front and rear wing, and possibly standardise them (feelings are bit mixed on that, as it eliminates the potential for the cars to look different)
- ban the paddles behind the wheel, and introduce a lever giving either sequential shift or a H pattern
- put a clutch pedal in the cars.

 

[sn00pie]

Originally posted by vat_man
- get rid of traction and launch control. I don't like the idea of a standard ECU, since it could chase electronics companies out of the sport, but I can't think how else they could police it

Agreed! And don't feel sorry for the electronics companies, it's for the good of the sport!

- eliminate electronic throttles, and return to the good old cable between accelerator and engine

I'm not sure why you'd want to do this, though. Aren't electronic throttles a lot safer? And since the driver probably wouldn't notice a diffirence why go back to a cable? (Hence, I'm very much against electronic throttle controllers - think TCS!)

- simply the aerodynamics to just a front and rear wing, and possibly standardise them (feelings are bit mixed on that, as it eliminates the potential for the cars to look different)

I wouldn't mind FIA to distribute some guidelines for them, but a full standardisation would break my heart, vat!

- ban the paddles behind the wheel, and introduce a lever giving either sequential shift or a H pattern

Oh, yes! A H pattern shifter would be great, leave some room for mis-shifts! Should be fun.

- put a clutch pedal in the cars.

Most definitely! Just imagine the starts (without launch control)

 

[wee_man]

Yeah starts without launch control will rally sort the men from the boys out.

 

[vrmx]

So you want F1 go back to 70's/80's?

 

[wee_man]

I would like it to go back to racing. Where cars would actually over take more than maybe once a race and for the drivers to earn their money's worth. If it means maybe going back to the 70's/80's which produced some great cars I think maybe it might be worth it. There must be some kind of in between balance though.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

But I remember races from the 80s, where the winning margins were huge. Yes, there were passing moves, but it's not like you were watching some formula where there was passing all the time.

I would like to see an end to semi-automatic gearboxes, and a return to H-pattern shifts. And also I would like to see an end to all forms of telemetry. I think it's that that's killed F1 as a driving spectacle.

 

[wee_man]

Originally posted by GilesGuthrie
But I remember races from the 80s, where the winning margins were huge. Yes, there were passing moves, but it's not like you were watching some formula where there was passing all the time.

I would like to see an end to semi-automatic gearboxes, and a return to H-pattern shifts. And also I would like to see an end to all forms of telemetry. I think it's that that's killed F1 as a driving spectacle.

Some good point's there. I gues I forgot about the boring races that you got. But I suppose it's really been like that through out the sports history where it's been not the most exciting racing event compared to things like touring cars. But yeah I agree with you Giles with the fact that I'd also like to see H pattern boxes make a come back.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by sn00pie
I'm not sure why you'd want to do this, though. Aren't electronic throttles a lot safer? And since the driver probably wouldn't notice a diffirence why go back to a cable? (Hence, I'm very much against electronic throttle controllers - think TCS!)

I wouldn't mind FIA to distribute some guidelines for them, but a full standardisation would break my heart, vat!
[/B]

Re the throttle cable - it reduces the possibility of cheating with traction control.

On the standard wings - yeah, I'd prefer not to see it, as it would take away a lot of the individuality of the cars - but in order to reduce aerodynamic efficiencies you're going to have to make the rules extremely tight, so the wings are going to look very similar.

A good example of why not to standardise it - my favourite GP car, the 1990 Tyrrell 019, the first raise nose GP car. That car revolutionised front end aerodynamics on open wheelers, so you could potentially lose that sort of innovation.

But then, you look at how tight CART is with the standard aero packages they run.

It's difficult - you'd prefer it not to become a psuedo one chassis formula.

 

[wee_man]

Originally posted by vat_man
Re the throttle cable - it reduces the possibility of cheating with traction control.

On the standard wings - yeah, I'd prefer not to see it, as it would take away a lot of the individuality of the cars - but in order to reduce aerodynamic efficiencies you're going to have to make the rules extremely tight, so the wings are going to look very similar.

A good example of why not to standardise it - my favourite GP car, the 1990 Tyrrell 019, the first raise nose GP car. That car revolutionised front end aerodynamics on open wheelers, so you could potentially lose that sort of innovation.

But then, you look at how tight CART is with the standard aero packages they run.

It's difficult - you'd prefer it not to become a psuedo one chassis formula.

Yea, but the thing is mos of the cars nowadays look the same anyway apart from the liveries. I'm sure if you were to take the liveries off and paint them the same colour most people wouldn't have a clue which car was which.

Also I think that some of the rules are so tight now you can't get much inovation left out of the designers and cars unfotunatly

 

[vat_man]

The rules have been stables for some time, too, wee_man, so you're bound to see a convergence of aero packages as teams work towards the optimum design.

Fair point though - if you look at the cars of, say 1993, compared to now, there was quite a wide variation in the approach to aerodynamics, and the cars were quite distinctive.

There's a great photo in this fortnight's Motorsport News (Australian motorsport publication) celebrating their 10th anniversary, showing the field taking off at the start of the 1993 Australian Grand Prix (I was there!), and the variation in the cars is amazing - the low needle nosed McLaren, the low broad nose of the Williams, the very high wide nose of the Benetton, the narrow slightly raised nose of the Ferrari. Mind you, Williams dominated that year...

I can remember a great old line about test cricket - 'the sport has never been what it used to be...'

I remember thinking back in 1992-1993 that a lot of the geewizardy, whislt having no place in grand prix racing, did have a place in some form of manufacturers championship, and that Group C sportscar racing was probably a better place for that techno gear - Group C (before Bernie ruined it with the 3.5 litre motors - all to get Peugeot into F1, and they didn't really want to anyway, especially after McLaren royally screwed them over) was a car formula, where people went to support Mercedes, Jaguar or Porsche, whereas F1 was about drivers, where people followed a Senna, Prost or Schumacher - I thought there was a great balance in the sport between F1 and Group C around 1990-91, even if Honda was dominating GP racing.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Originally posted by vat_man
...to get Peugeot into F1, and they didn't really want to anyway, especially after McLaren royally screwed them over

You love the contentious statements, don't you! I've never seen Ron particularly happy when both cars grenade as the grid forms...

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Originally posted by vat_man
The rules have been stables for some time, too, wee_man, so you're bound to see a convergence of aero packages as teams work towards the optimum design.

Fair point though - if you look at the cars of, say 1993, compared to now, there was quite a wide variation in the approach to aerodynamics, and the cars were quite distinctive.

There's a great photo in this fortnight's Motorsport News (Australian motorsport publication) celebrating their 10th anniversary, showing the field taking off at the start of the 1993 Australian Grand Prix (I was there!), and the variation in the cars is amazing - the low needle nosed McLaren, the low broad nose of the Williams, the very high wide nose of the Benetton, the narrow slightly raised nose of the Ferrari. Mind you, Williams dominated that year...

I can remember a great old line about test cricket - 'the sport has never been what it used to be...'

I remember thinking back in 1992-1993 that a lot of the geewizardy, whislt having no place in grand prix racing, did have a place in some form of manufacturers championship, and that Group C sportscar racing was probably a better place for that techno gear - Group C (before Bernie ruined it with the 3.5 litre motors - all to get Peugeot into F1, and they didn't really want to anyway, especially after McLaren royally screwed them over) was a car formula, where people went to support Mercedes, Jaguar or Porsche, whereas F1 was about drivers, where people followed a Senna, Prost or Schumacher - I thought there was a great balance in the sport between F1 and Group C around 1990-91, even if Honda was dominating GP racing.

The rules were realtively dynamic in the early 90s, hence that variety. But I also think that with Max coming to be head of the FIA, a lot more intelligence, professionalism and thoroughness was brought into the rule writing and the scrutineering. That has meant that a lot of the scope for innovation (which has always been about circumventing the rules) was lost.

Also, back in those days you had the superstar designers. Not like today, where the 'star' simply takes credit for the team's work. Back then cars really were designed by small teams, and the likes of Newey, Anderson, Head, Postlethwaite, Murray, Barnard, Byrne etc were able to stamp their own individuality on the designs.

However, this year really has seen something new. I mean, I've seen bits of cars being copied onto another team's designs before, but nothing on the scale of the plagiarism of F2002. I'm starting to believe the tales about the CDs for sale.

 

[advanR]

um, how do you think it would work out to have an h-pattern box needing to be dealt with while experiencing 3 corning gs, and 4 gs braking?

i dont like all of the technology making the driving easier, but i think it has its place in f1. however, i think it would be great if there was seriously a series where they just used 80s f1 cars.............not sure how that would work.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Originally posted by advanR
um, how do you think it would work out to have an h-pattern box needing to be dealt with while experiencing 3 corning gs, and 4 gs braking?

i dont like all of the technology making the driving easier, but i think it has its place in f1. however, i think it would be great if there was seriously a series where they just used 80s f1 cars.............not sure how that would work.

There is. It's called BOSS.

H pattern boxes should be part of it because it would necessitate an alteration in driving style to overcome the problems of trying to shift whilst experiencing those G forces. It's the way it always used to work.

 

[Sheron]

I think FIA have to put a limit to the engine. Like the one in WRChampinship: Put in the intake a washer or something like that which has a size equal for all teams.
That will make the teams more equal in engines, and the teams don't need already to spend lots of money to investigate new and more powerful engines.

 

[wee_man]

Originally posted by GilesGuthrie
There is. It's called BOSS.

H pattern boxes should be part of it because it would necessitate an alteration in driving style to overcome the problems of trying to shift whilst experiencing those G forces. It's the way it always used to work.

Yeah I went to see BOSS recently at Brands Hatch with my dad, it was part of a historic festival. Maybe it was just that race, but it wa a pretty boring race when I saw it. Todays Formula one was actualy more exciting than this thing....Maybe it doesn't always work out.. I suppose it also depends on whoose driving the cars as well.

 

[wee_man]

Also Vat_Man i agree with you in what you said about how people use to go and see sportscar racing for the manufactuers and F1 for the drivers. It was still like that not soo long ago in 1997-1999. Then in 2000 onwards most of the big manufactuers fell out and we were left with the little teams. I think that's why and when the sports demise came about. I mean it's not exactly it's most popular and most memorable period is it. And even though people in F1 are saying how the sport can't run with out the privater teams, I also don't really think it can run without the factory teams. I mean I'd imagine that quite a few people who watch F1 now support a team more than a driver, like Ferrari, Jaguar, Renault and yes the other smaller teams as well (e.g. Minardi and Jordan), but I think that the big manufactuers are quite important nowadays. I think it's because people can relate and say hey I've got a Renault, and in a certain manor of speaking say that's my car, and feel part of the team. What I'm trying to get at is I have a nasty feeling that if we do loose these bigger factory teams the sport will probably face it's darkest hour especially with this possible new break away series comming up.

Also Sheron I agree with you as well, otherwise I think the engines are going to get rediculosley powerful, and someone's going to get hurt.

BTW sorry I accidently posted 2 of these so feel free to delete the one above, whoever the moderator is (which I think is Giles)?

 

[sn00pie]

I've never heard of BOSS Formula before, it looks pretty exciting!

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Wee_man, I've never personally seen a BOSS race, so I can't comment. I've seen Thoroughbred Grand Prix though and they're nutters. Which is interesting because the difference between BOSS/TGP and F1 is that in F1 the driver's don't own the cars.

I think that F1 needs a good number of cars. I agree that 20 cars is the minimum, and that means that the sport needs to protect every team out there, from the 'grandees' down to the Minardis/Jordans. They need there to be a little spread between them, and for an element of randomness to be a part of the sport. The rules harmony is damaging the sport because it's killing all the innovation that leads to changes in dominance.

And Sheron: putting restrictors in works for rallying because the cars don't share track. However, just look at the super speedway NASCAR races to see how bad restrictors in circuit racing can be.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by GilesGuthrie
You love the contentious statements, don't you! I've never seen Ron particularly happy when both cars grenade as the grid forms...

True - but it was their second year in the sport, and McLaren did walk away from the second year of the agreement.

They didn't have a great year (yes, I remember Brundle blowing up on the grid at Silverstone) but they did show some speed - Hakkinen picked up quite a few podiums - and I would point out they scored 12 more points than they did in 1995 with Mercedes (mind you, the car was a donkey that year, and they did have the whole 'Mansell' thing...).

 

[GilesGuthrie]

OMG, the "Mansell Thing": McLaren's worst period ever, bar none. The cringeworthiness of Hakkinen's Monza blubbing, only for three whole months.

And it was clearly the ugliest McLaren ever.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by GilesGuthrie
OMG, the "Mansell Thing": McLaren's worst period ever, bar none. The cringeworthiness of Hakkinen's Monza blubbing, only for three whole months.

And it was clearly the ugliest McLaren ever.

No argument there, friend - that hideous mid-wing. Remember the asymmetrical handling problem they chased all year and couldn't find?

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Originally posted by vat_man
No argument there, friend - that hideous mid-wing. Remember the asymmetrical handling problem they chased all year and couldn't find?

That didn't offend me too much, although when Autosport first broke the story, their "artist's impression" was beautiful in comparison.

No, what got me was that the monocoque section was square until it got to the front suspension, then it was clumsily fashioned into a point from which the wing pillars dropped. Oh, it was ugly.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

HEALTH WARNING: Viewing this image will seriously offend anyone with a sense of design.

I'd forgotten about the basardised airbox. You can tell Adrian Newey was still at Williams...

 

[sn00pie]

Looks... pointy?

 

[vat_man]

Yeah - I think that was the car that forced the FIA to mandate a minimum nose width. From memory I think it punctured another car's chassis in an incident.

 

[sn00pie]

Well, it does look plain dangerous. You don't want to get that nose into your tires, let alone transmission box!

 

[wee_man]

What the hell!?!?!?
Did they get a drunk monkey to design that thing or what!??!
I remember that car and man did it make children cry at the ugliness of that thing.

Speaking of McLaren did anyone remember that race at Herez I think in 1995/6 when Ron Dennis asked if Frank Williams or Flavio Briatore (can't remember who or when) would pull there drivers over and let Mika Hakkinen win. They did as well. Or maybe I dreamt it...hmmm...i was taking some dodgy stuff at the time...

 

[vat_man]

That's not quite what happened - but it's close.

The race you're thinking of was Jerez (yeah, a J - it's pronounced as a H) 1997 - yeah, THAT race, where Schumacher tried to take Villenueve off to win the championship.

Villenueve let Hakkinen and Coulthard through on the last lap - he was under a fair degree of pressure from the McLarens and simply need to finish 3rd to take the championship.