British GP / What will improve the racing? (merged)

[BootsOntheSide]

Why should the backmarkers have been behind everyone else? Their racing performances had earnt them the positiosn they were in. And no one except Montoya ever treis a 50/50 overtaking move after a Safety Car. They drive like a bunch of faggots.

[ysofast]

I think refuelling is another factor that makes it a better chess game. What reasons do you offer to ban it?

[fog_shadow]

Originally posted by Craig
we like to see overtaking hence we're anti-Ferrari!!!

interesting way of looking at it i suppose. funny how that thought never crossed my mind.

hehehe, now when i think about it, i suppose most ferrari bashers at some deep sub-conscious level rationalise in their own minds that they're actually pro-racing.


fog_shadow

[Craig]

Because it's NOT chess!!!! It's a motor RACE. Or it's supposed to be... Sadly it's changed so much in the past ten years or so that a) older fans no longer have any interest in the 'sport' and b) newer fans (sadly) do not know any better and believe that racing means whoever has the best pitstop strategy...

[ysofast]

Originally posted by Craig
ysofast, okay, how about this?

Reduce aero downforce and increase mechanical grip (smaller wings and big slicks)
Increase braking distances (ban carbon brakes)
Increase driver input (ban all types of traction control, launch control, semi or auto boxes)
Remove the strategy aspect and allow the cars to race (no mid race refueling, one set of tyres per race)

I could go on, but you get the idea. I don't say what I say about F1 because I don't care. Rather because every time that I tune in I feel disappointed and cheated. I would love to see the spectacle return to the sport and be able to look forward to tuning in on a Sunday once again.

Some good points.. disagree with banning carbon brakes and one set of tyres and fuel. These things push the tech and this makes f1 the most exotic and highest form of racing. As for making the driver a bigger part of it here here.

[Craig]

There's not much point trying to answer that, fog_shadow - the fog has clearly descended and is preventing you from seeing what people are trying to say :rolleys: And for your information we like to see racing throughout the field - we're not just talking about the first few places where Ferrari are usually to be found!

[johnh875]

I don't know that refuelling is spoiling the racing, but I think is affecting it too much because there are too many pitstops and also or perhaps because of this a lack of ways to change the strategy apart from the number of stops.

I also find it strange when there is so much focus on safety, the pit lane speed limit has been increased.

[Stuart Hill]

Originally posted by ysofast
I think refuelling is another factor that makes it a better chess game. What reasons do you offer to ban it?

1) it's dangerous...
2) it's unecessary..
3) it's costly....
4) it makes a Grand Prix into a selection of sprint races
5) it leaves anyone without commentary completely unaware of true race positions.

but why does it take 21 people to change 4 tyres and re-fuel a car in F1 when.....

NASCAR, IRL and CART use 6 or less????

and F1 want to cut costs??????

[Craig]

Originally posted by ysofast
Some good points.. disagree with banning carbon brakes and one set of tyres and fuel. These things push the tech and this makes f1 the most exotic and highest form of racing. As for making the driver a bigger part of it here here.

If we're talking about pushing the boundaries of technology then I kind of agree with you about the brakes as there is some good potential there for future road use. However surely there is more benefit to be found in trying to increase the efficiency of fuel (thus reducing the weight and therefore reducing the lap time) and increasing the life of the tyre to last the entire race rather than a handful of laps?

[fog_shadow]

aren't we forgetting something? all that strategy won't count for squat unless the car is fast (a key ingredient in motorsport) and the driver is capable of driving it as fast as he needs to make the strategy stick (another key ingredient of motorsport).

fast cars and fast drivers just have the added bonus of fast minds. it's the secret of evolution if you will.

i'm sure that a tyrannosaurus hunting would be spectacular to watch, but that doesn't necessarily make it better than a cheetah.

fog_shadow

[ysofast]

Between myself and fog we have ****ed off craig. No offence buddy but take a deep breath. Nothing like some good debate to get cranked up eh? We can offer some ideas to improve the game, if they are any good and don't effect the bottom line too much don't be suprised if they get in there. This is the least nasty posting venue I have seen so, just maybe some big important people read these posts.

[Craig]

Not ****ed off at all... so no offence taken! It just infuriates me that a sport that is potentially so exciting as F1 is a constant let down.

[johnh875]

Would there be any benefit in having some races where there were no pitstops allowed, just to mix things up?

[Craig]

Sadly that'd not be possible nowadays as the tanks are so small that they'd not be able to hold enough fuel to do a full GP distance.

[ysofast]

I am glad you are not **ed off as this is a great place to exchange ideas with the like minded. Some of your ideas should be put forward with the likelyhood of them being put in place in mind. As for putting a spec downforce panel on the underside of the car and reducing topside downforce, can you see a downside??

[fog_shadow]

fair enough Craig,
however, perhaps you should also consider that there are a lot of fans who do not feel let down, and who quite enjoy the sport. some of them even for the strategy.

i happen to fall in that category. there are 2 sides to every coin. if i am not elitist enough to enjoy the "racing", well some of you are not smart enough to appreciate the strategy.

i'd like to think that the above sentence is the exception to the rule however. and certainly no offence meant. and none taken.

fog_shadow

[Super Tourer]

That wouldn't work currently ,as the cars cannot carry enough fuel for a race distance, and the tyre companies have only developed tyres for 'stints', not a whole race.

We are getting off the topic of the actual British GP ( which James Allen told us was FANTASTIC - as usual), but the processional nature of the race has seen the conversation evolve to talk about what it could be ,I guess!

Certainly banning refuelling would take one weapon out of Ferrari's armoury, as they seemingly have an answer to whatever race circumstances present themselves.

edit. I was referring to the running races without pitstop point BTW.

[johnh875]

This is a fantastic thread, the only downside is there are 3 other posts appearing while replying, so it may appear a bit disjointed to some tomorrow!

Craig - I think that is one of the attractions of the idea, to make the cars have larger fuel tanks. It would mean they are a bit larger in some areas and heavier, but one of the things that annoys me at the moment is the way they trumpet how much underweight the cars are so they can use tungsten to get it back up to spec! I think the minimum weight should be a lot closer to the actual weight of the car.

ysofast - isn't one of the downsides of ground effects aero that once you have some yaw on the car you lose airflow and downforce? Which is more dangerous in an accident, or more accurately it could convert more potentials into actuals.

[ysofast]

I have watched f1 for 30 years and continue to enjoy this the pinnacle of motorsports.

What improvements would you like to see implemented. Keep in mind sponsers pay the bill and tech drives the sport.
I would like to see more passing and the teams would like to see cost control. How can these things come to pass?

[Super Tourer]

I will edit the title to reflect the conversation has evolved!

[fog_shadow]

Originally posted by crazystu
1) it's dangerous...
2) it's unecessary..
3) it's costly....
4) it makes a Grand Prix into a selection of sprint races
5) it leaves anyone without commentary completely unaware of true race positions.

but why does it take 21 people to change 4 tyres and re-fuel a car in F1 when.....

NASCAR, IRL and CART use 6 or less????

and F1 want to cut costs??????

it's dangerous? more dangerous than loading a car with a ****load of fuel and having it travel round a track at ridiculously high speeds?

unless you can provide some more information to back that claim of yours i wouldn't treat it with any more respect than i would the CIA claims on WMD in iraq.

if point 1) from your argument is subjective and speculative it follows that point 2 and 3 are as well.

it can be debated is point 4 is really an evil and well point 5 is not even relevent.for goodness sake man, turn up the volume and listen to the commentry. it's what commentators get paid to do.

having bigger pit crews actually increases the variables in the pit poker equation. if anything it'll provide the other teams a broader oppurtunity to improve over ferrari.

[johnh875]

ST - I see you are having the same problem I am! I have already mentioned fuel tanks, and as for tyres it would be simple - develop tyres for a whole race. I realise this would not help cost cutting, but could be compensated for by restricting the number of varieties available or regulating them in some other fashion. I have not made up my mind whether that would be appropriate for F1 though.

Perhaps instead of banning pitstops another way of achieving the same thing would be to lengthen the time taken for fuel stops. The fuel is currently delivered under pressure isn't it? Gravity-feed would be slower and also safer.

[touringlegend]

I think everybody is missing the point. All teams run to the same rules, changing them dramatically might still leave the best team (ie Ferrari) dominating.

[Super Tourer]

Originally posted by touringlegend
I think everybody is missing the point. All teams run to the same rules, changing them dramatically might still leave the best team (ie Ferrari) dominating.

It's a valid point that we have debated long and oft in the forum. Ferrari are the best overall team, both MS's last two race wins amplify the team effort involved.

There is nothing to say that changing the rules will guarantee closer racing, often the best resourced/equipped teams are able to use the rule change to increase their advantage.

It may not be the case, but it's worth mentioning and Ferrari seem to have the answer to whatever the opposition - such as it is - can muster.

On the back of last year, many pundits were predicting a close run season with Kimi, Alonso and KPM all swinging on MS's tail, it hasn't happened and it would have been interesting to see the views of races fans if Ferrari were facing some real opposition.

The lack of challenge from rival teams are as much to blame for the lack of racing, as the format and regulation of the races IMO.

[JAG]

Originally posted by touringlegend
I think everybody is missing the point. All teams run to the same rules, changing them dramatically might still leave the best team (ie Ferrari) dominating.

I don't think the Ferrari domination is actually a problem.

The problem is the cars are unexciting to watch and when there are a couple of cars closely matched it is virtually impossible to pass.

Slowing and making the cars more exciting to watch does not neccessarily mean reducing the level of technology either.