GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Andy B on January 12, 2018, 08:32:33 PM
-
One again Liberty are dropping hints at changing the grid format from staggered to maybe three or four cars side by side which I think will cause even more carnage than we have at times now.
Maybe they want fewer cars finishing the race?
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/133859/f1-evaluating-grid-formation-change
-
That would make quali even more critical. The further back in the grid you are, the more likely to be taken out in the Turn 1 melee.
-
Not sure I want to see the front of a grid which looks like most of the motorways in the UK...gridlock will definitely be the operative name.
Are Liberty trying to bring us F1 Stock Car Racing?
-
After multiple shunts at each start for several races the FIA will then mandate rolling starts - job done for US F1 rights owners, American style races. URRRGH!!!!!!!
-
The starting grid has been the same since I started watching, but they have done three abreast in the past, haven't they?
Or am i thinking of old Indy videos?
I don't really think that the start of the race is a big problem. Personally, I miss the first corner red flag and the sprint back to the 't car'. I can appreciate that was dangerous and expensive and overall a bad idea, but it was still fun to watch.
-
Here you go, Jeri. The 1967 Dutch GP. Three abreast start.
Yes, I did pick this race because it was the debut of the Lotus 49-Ford Cosworth DFV :yahoo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi1xAnsNGRo
-
That was the F1 I fell in love with. I think the grids in those days were actually 3-2-3.
-
Real great looking F1 cars, but by God weren't they death traps.
-
You're right, Lonnie. Pause it about 7 seconds in and the grid can be seen that way.
You're right, too, Ian. They didn't even have seat belts or harnesses. It was thought to be safer to be thrown clear.
-
They would rather be smashed about than burned.
-
The cars that started side by side were narrower than what we have today and three or four on the front of the grid will will make pole less important for the start drag race.
Rolling starts do little for me and if they did introduce that I'll be out of here and go and watch paint dry.
Is change needed for changes sake or is it just to say we are here and in charge now?
Let hope the team principals stand up and be counted this season.
-
It's worrying isn't it..... with all the problems F1 faces they come up with a potential change to the grid layout! Removing the stagger is possible and it would reward the guy with the best clutch control but any other layout is more or less physically impossible. The cars are too wide to have more than two abreast. Also I see this as another admission that they cannot see how to improve overtaking. They are basically trying to add to the excitement of the start because whoever gets away at the front will probably stay at the front!
-
It's been said on here many a time, the only way to improve overtaking is to cut the aero down.
-
It's been said on here many a time, the only way to improve overtaking is to cut the aero down.
Mechanical grip should be king!
-
It's been said on here many a time, the only way to improve overtaking is to cut the aero down.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but I would like the impact on the sport to be discussed.
Mechanical grip comes from the tires and the suspension? Given that the tires are standards, and I believe the suspension is regulated to the point where they're not standard, but the variation is less than in the engines. Would that make F1 essentially a spec series if the chassis is irrelevant?
Or am I missing an aspect of mechanical grip? Or are we suggesting that aerodynamicists are replaced by suspension engineers as the 'rock stars' of car design?
(I don't have a problem with the latter, just want to be clear)
-
I like the idea of 3-2-3 as long as the in-row cars are closer to each other than the between-row cars (at the moment, the space between every position is equal, at 8 metres). Otherwise, there would be no advantage to merely changing the array - they'll still be as far away from one another and there still wouldn't be any of the desired bunching, making the change pointless.
-
I can't say how it might work today, but in the eighties ground effects cars had much less difficulty passing. The aero force was centered under the middle of the car and the wings were little more than trim tabs. Many cars did away with the front wing altogether as an unnecessary disruption to the airflow. Current cars have the aero concentrated at the ends of the car, so naturally when you take the air off the front wing you take away the grip and the car slows. I admit returning to GE would introduce a new set of problems but it might be worth a try.
-
I guess that they need to do something to increase the attrition rate and generate more unpredictable results. Changing the way in which cars line up on the grid is entirely the wrong way to go about achieving this outcomes though, in my opinion.
-
I can't say how it might work today, but in the eighties ground effects cars had much less difficulty passing. The aero force was centered under the middle of the car and the wings were little more than trim tabs. Many cars did away with the front wing altogether as an unnecessary disruption to the airflow. Current cars have the aero concentrated at the ends of the car, so naturally when you take the air off the front wing you take away the grip and the car slows. I admit returning to GE would introduce a new set of problems but it might be worth a try.
Wasn't the issue with ground effects that if it failed, it would fail catastrophically?
I do want to see the sport adjusted so that cars aren't affected by the presence of other cars (aside from physical contact)
-
I suppose that means Monaco is going away. Or..the rule won't apply there. I've stood on that start line and I barely fit, I can't imagine 3 F1 cars wide on that street.
-
Wasn't the issue with ground effects that if it failed, it would fail catastrophically?
You are correct Jeri. Unlike the downforce provided by wings, where a breakage or minor change of attitude creates a small reduction, the problem with ground effect is if downforce is lost, it is lost completely - normally with frightening results!
-
Wasn't the issue with ground effects that if it failed, it would fail catastrophically?
You are correct Jeri. Unlike the downforce provided by wings, where a breakage or minor change of attitude creates a small reduction, the problem with ground effect is if downforce is lost, it is lost completely - normally with frightening results!
Hold on there Monty!
Wing failure front or rear is catastrophic Roland Ratzenberger lost his life after a front wing failure and there have been many crashes caused by wing failures.
With the improvement in electronics I'm sure such failures to computer controlled suspension would be more reliable but I would prefer to have mechanical grip so cars could actually race nose to tail.
-
The first ground effects cars used sliding skirts that moved up and down on a pulley system and actually dragged on the track to seal off the air under the car. At the old Hockenheim, before the chicanes went in, very brave drivers found they could take the 180 at the far end of the track flat out. Bruno Giacomelli had a skirt hang in the up position, breaking the seal and sending him off track at 200 mph. Skirts were banned and chicanes inserted. Clever designers simply lowered the cars as far as possible and recouped most of the skirted down force. Venues complained of track damage and the FIA has never liked workarounds that subverted the intent of the rules, so a minimum ride height rule was passed. Cars had to stop and be measured entering and exiting the pits. Clever designers installed hydraulic systems that lowered the car exiting the pits and raised it up again upon return. Enter the plank; fasten a bit of plywood under the car and mandate x amount of wear. Meanwhile speeds were steadily rising so a flat bottom was proposed to slow the cars down by reducing aero. That leads us to today. In the 35 or so years since GT/E was banned we have had massive technological advances. Who knows how that tech would affect a modern G/E car? CART ran non skirted cars for many years and I can't recall a single catastrophic aero failure. It was a non skirted car that ran the fastest laps ever at INDY, which led to Tony George demanding flat bottomed non turbo cars to reduce speeds, which led to the split that killed INDY as we knew it. Cars in the original G/E era had no trouble running nose to tail or passing. John Watson famously came from 22ND or 24TH on the grid to win at Long Beach. Don't see that today. I don't know how it would work today, but it is a reasonable alternative to try. What they're doing now isn't working.
-
Wasn't the issue with ground effects that if it failed, it would fail catastrophically?
You are correct Jeri. Unlike the downforce provided by wings, where a breakage or minor change of attitude creates a small reduction, the problem with ground effect is if downforce is lost, it is lost completely - normally with frightening results!
Hold on there Monty!
Wing failure front or rear is catastrophic Roland Ratzenberger lost his life after a front wing failure and there have been many crashes caused by wing failures.
With the improvement in electronics I'm sure such failures to computer controlled suspension would be more reliable but I would prefer to have mechanical grip so cars could actually race nose to tail.
Depends on the type of wing failure.
If a wing gets stuck under a wheel (occasionally but memorable for whole-front-wing failures) or a rear wing falls off at full speed (probably the most common type of rear-wing failure), then it tends to be catastrophic.
If it's a piece of the wing that fails (the most common type for the super-complex front wings of today, and also applicable to winglets), then it tends to be a minor issue.
-
Hold on there Monty!
Wing failure front or rear is catastrophic Roland Ratzenberger lost his life after a front wing failure and there have been many crashes caused by wing failures.
With the improvement in electronics I'm sure such failures to computer controlled suspension would be more reliable but I would prefer to have mechanical grip so cars could actually race nose to tail.
As Ali has explained, it is very unusual for a broken wing to cause a catastrophic accident. Roland Ratzenberger's accident was caused because he was driving with a damaged wing and part of it broke off and went under the car. The car basically then took off and he literally flew into the wall - if the accident wasn't at Imola he would probably have survived. My point was that 'normally' only part of a wing breaks and some dowforce is retained. With ground effect if you significantly increase the ride height (big hit on a kerb, clip another car) all of the downforce is lost.
-
Hold on there Monty!
Wing failure front or rear is catastrophic Roland Ratzenberger lost his life after a front wing failure and there have been many crashes caused by wing failures.
With the improvement in electronics I'm sure such failures to computer controlled suspension would be more reliable but I would prefer to have mechanical grip so cars could actually race nose to tail.
As Ali has explained, it is very unusual for a broken wing to cause a catastrophic accident. Roland Ratzenberger's accident was caused because he was driving with a damaged wing and part of it broke off and went under the car. The car basically then took off and he literally flew into the wall - if the accident wasn't at Imola he would probably have survived. My point was that 'normally' only part of a wing breaks and some dowforce is retained. With ground effect if you significantly increase the ride height (big hit on a kerb, clip another car) all of the downforce is lost.
That certainly fits into the philosophy of stopping cars from gaining an advantage by going off track. Who needs a gravel trap when a curb is enough to make your car uncontrollable at speed?
I'm sold on the idea of ground effects: they just need to ensure that catastrophic failure is rare (and if CART could do it, surely it's a piece of cake for F1).
-
Hold on there Monty!
Wing failure front or rear is catastrophic Roland Ratzenberger lost his life after a front wing failure and there have been many crashes caused by wing failures.
With the improvement in electronics I'm sure such failures to computer controlled suspension would be more reliable but I would prefer to have mechanical grip so cars could actually race nose to tail.
As Ali has explained, it is very unusual for a broken wing to cause a catastrophic accident. Roland Ratzenberger's accident was caused because he was driving with a damaged wing and part of it broke off and went under the car. The car basically then took off and he literally flew into the wall - if the accident wasn't at Imola he would probably have survived. My point was that 'normally' only part of a wing breaks and some dowforce is retained. With ground effect if you significantly increase the ride height (big hit on a kerb, clip another car) all of the downforce is lost.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree and there have been plenty of wing failures especially in their early days and rear wings have come off completely which have caused some hairy accidents.
I would rather less aero and more mechanical grip to get the racing back to where it should be but instead of addressing these important issues we have a logo change and removal of grid girls so I'm unsure where Liberty are taking F1?
-
I would rather less aero and more mechanical grip to get the racing back to where it should be but instead of addressing these important issues we have a logo change and removal of grid girls so I'm unsure where Liberty are taking F1?
Personally, I like the idea that F1 racing can be won or lost on the drawing board. If it comes down to the best driver, that's what spec series racing is for. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing when a superior driver gets the most out of their car. I just feel that F1 is a team sport, and taking away the mechanics, engineers and designers makes it kind of hollow. What F1 needs is the ability for a team with a poor design to catch up quickly.
As for Liberty, I believe FOM is not supposed to influence the rules. Certainly Bernie put forth his 2 cents, but he'd been there long enough that the FIA would listen to him (though not always). ANYONE taking over from Bernie would have a problem influencing the FIA. We can certainly pin pre race window dressing and marketing on Liberty, but not the engine formula, nor the aerodynamic rules.
-
I would rather less aero and more mechanical grip to get the racing back to where it should be but instead of addressing these important issues we have a logo change and removal of grid girls so I'm unsure where Liberty are taking F1?
Personally, I like the idea that F1 racing can be won or lost on the drawing board. If it comes down to the best driver, that's what spec series racing is for. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing when a superior driver gets the most out of their car. I just feel that F1 is a team sport, and taking away the mechanics, engineers and designers makes it kind of hollow. What F1 needs is the ability for a team with a poor design to catch up quickly.
As for Liberty, I believe FOM is not supposed to influence the rules. Certainly Bernie put forth his 2 cents, but he'd been there long enough that the FIA would listen to him (though not always). ANYONE taking over from Bernie would have a problem influencing the FIA. We can certainly pin pre race window dressing and marketing on Liberty, but not the engine formula, nor the aerodynamic rules.
You are correct. However, nobody seems to have told Liberty that detail.