Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingguest
However, the technical regulations are very prescriptive and cause the cars to converge more than ever before. Thereby drivers do not have a sufficient delta. The overall performances are simply too even. But instead of relaxing the rules and allowing different technical solutions, DRS, P2P and tires with extreme degradation are used to artificially create on-track action.
|
I really struggle to follow this type of logic. If I follow you are saying that more technical freedom will result in more performance disparity. I can agree with that.
How exactly is that wider range of performance to create better on track action? If performance of cars is wider, then they will likely qualify and finish in performance order. Having larger performance gaps will create on track gaps. Cars will not be close to each other. Racing will be boring.
Now, a more nuanced approach (and maybe what you are saying) is that team A will make a car that is fast on the straights, but slow in the corners and team B will make a car that is slow on the straights, but fast in the corners. Both cars might have equal lap time, so the idea is to have cars passing back and forth over a single lap.
On the surface that makes some logical sense. But it seems teams will always coalesce or gravitate toward similar solutions. That teams will "optimize" for overall "best" performance. Back to my slow/fast/corner/straight example, most will realize that passing in corners is always harder/risker than passing on straights and will focus on passing on straights, but with enough cornering speed to not sacrifice overall lap time. Again, in general they will all gravitate toward similar solutions and performance will generally be the same. Once again creating the current situation.
Attempts at alternate solutions run into problems such as failure (Nissan DeltaWing fiasco at LeMans) which destroy funding due to not meeting anticipated goals. Or might be successful, but are banned due to pressure from other teams (and regulators) who fear dominance while other take time and money (maybe a long time, maybe lots of money) to catch up.
Also, the idea of what "good racing" means is not a universally agreed upon concept. One one extreme you have people who thinks that is positional battles that results in lots of back and forth overtakes while on the other extreme it is pure "who can build the quickest car" and no battles for position is just fine as from a pure "sport" perspective, the fastest car wins.
The first example (lots of passing) is more what I suspect the commercial side (and probably the bulk of fans want). The second would be deemed "boring" by most fans.
Ok, you think this is long post already... let me get on my soapbox!
You can have rules that are either open or close loop. So a closed loop system will have feedback. So for example a series that uses some type of BoP (balance of performance) system that dials up/down performance on a car/driver level by things like adjustable weight/hp, reverse grids, etc.. It uses one or more metrics (such as "good racing" = cars that run close together) that has a target value. You look at race results and feed those back as "corrections" (the BoP values) to try to drive the metrics toward your desired target. An open loop system is simple. I has rules that try to get an outcome, but there is no feedback loop. If you don't get your desired results, you adjust your rules and try again. But there is no dynamic system to drive the output.
F1 (generally) is open loop. I think some GT racing is closed loop.
The problem however with F1 is that it has VERY specific outcomes it wants. It wants (not a full list)... (1) beautiful cars (2) cheap cars (3) fast cars (4) entertaining races (5) remember it's heritage/roots.
This might be easier to solve by using a closed loop system. But I think the nature of this would be in conflict with item five in the list above. F1 has a history of having set rules and the idea that it is about "best car wins" vs. "helping hands via BoP". Note that interestingly enough F1 is slowly adding more closed loop items. For example the Aerodynamic Testing Restrictions (ATR) system uses adjustments as to how much aero time you get based upon prior year championship standing. But it still remains primarily an open loop system from a regulators perspective.
But within the teams, they operate closed loop. They iterate based upon feedback to change the car over time. But their goals are not fully aligned with those of the F1 regulators. They may not care if the cars are beautiful or cheap or produces entertainment. They care about winning and out of necessity, servicing sponsor's expectations/needs.
But my point is, I think most fans also want "
simple rules that result in complex/specific outcomes". For example, they think that open rules will result in beautiful cars, better/entertaining racing, etc. But I suspect that creating...
1. An open loop system
2. With simple rules
3. That generate VERY specific outcomes
...
Is effectively impossible to fully achieve. Add in the complicating factors in which the common example of "simple rules" is "freedom of choice" (which is highly unpredictable) and fold in the closed loop nature of the teams with goals that have agenda's that are not fully aligned with the desired outcomes of the F1 regulators.
So if simple rules do not work (and there is no evidence they will), you progressively evolve them to make them more and more restrictive. Which is what F1 has been doing for decades.
Richard