Is F1 getting boring?

[Ogami musashi]

Really? I though they had to fall back to avoid increased tire wear and engine overheating.

It has always been the same. Again physics do not change; The question is the distance, and the distance is shorter this year, so more overtaking opportunities.
I agree with you that some factors may favor that, but again physics are physic, whatever the grip of the following car (if we talk about leading cars, that is cars with not so much differences in grip) if aero were that worse, they wouldn't have overtake; They did.

Please watch a 2008 race a see the distance between cars.

It is surely not as close as last year. Also the overheating problem is more evident. Especially more than in pre 09 formula. It seems like the 'central heating' at the back of these cars (RB6, STR5 being the most obvious cases) is designed to create overheating problems for the car behind.
IMO, the biggest improvement in overtaking after '08 comes from the slick tires, that seem to be more manageable. We've seen some drivers getting away with powersliding out of the corners.

The problem was already here last year, this year it is simply because the front tyres have less grip; Again, the only relevance to aero problem is the distance you can follow someone. And that distance is like last year if not better.

Drivers quotes are drivers quotes, not precise measurements.

[autogyro]

Perhaps we should get the aerodynamacists to drive the cars.
They seem to know it all.
There is nothing to beat sitting behind another F1 car lap after lap trying to pass to educate the mind in CAD systems.

[Ogami musashi]

Perhaps we should get the aerodynamacists to drive the cars.
They seem to know it all.
There is nothing to beat sitting behind another F1 car lap after lap trying to pass to educate the mind in CAD systems.

You're right, then non aerodynamists should stop talking about aeros...

[kilcoo316]

Perhaps we should get the aerodynamacists to drive the cars.
They seem to know it all.
There is nothing to beat sitting behind another F1 car lap after lap trying to pass to educate the mind in CAD systems.

What is there to say really...

[jddh1]

So basically we need tracks with more than one racing line. I propose this:

[andrew]

jddh1 - good one!

Are you suggesting that an F1 race around spaghetti junction in Birmingham?

Not a bad idea!

[WhiteBlue]

Perhaps we should get the aerodynamacists to drive the cars.
They seem to know it all.
There is nothing to beat sitting behind another F1 car lap after lap trying to pass to educate the mind in CAD systems.

You're right, then non aerodynamists should stop talking about aeros...

I do not need to know why the aero is screwed to know that it is screwed. The drivers know it as well and they want more mechanical grip and less aero grip. Until mechanical issues become the main field of competitive advantages I will rather listen to drivers than aerodynamicists.

Aerodynamicists probably know why the aero is screwed but they have a vested interest to have aero as the main field of competitive advantage. Ergo they will never criticize that status and rather send F1 for another 15 or 20 years on wild goose chases.

[Miguel]

A driver knows what he feels when he's stuck behind other cars. However, and as insightful as drivers' quotes sometimes are, they have spent most of their lives driving cars. The engineers, on the other hand, have spent a sizeable amount of time studiing. Furthermore, they are trained to solve problems. With that in mind, and with my typical uneasy feeling towards engineers (can't help it, I'm a physicist), I'd much rather rely on the solution proposed by an engineer than on the driver's solution. Of course, I wouldn't accept any of them blindly, but that's another issue.

Many people here had a great time watching the Australian GP yesterday, with mixed condition. This actually provided a theatre with high downforce and low mechanical grip. There were issues with the drying track later, when going off line meant losing a ton of mechanical grip due to moist in the asphalt. Solving the lack of grip off line would probably be a boon for dry races, although I have no clue how could you do this.

Finally, F1 has always been a competition between engineers. Else, nobody would have ever heard about, for example, Colin Chapman. So even the non-aero guys want to keep this a technology race. Fixing the cars' design in order to achive closer racing would get this but, on the other hand, would lose the manufacturers and the technically minded following forever.

[Pandamasque]

Fixing the cars' design in order to achive closer racing would get this but, on the other hand, would lose the manufacturers and the technically minded following forever.

Why? Why do you think fixing this issue implies diminishing the technical side of Formula1?

[Miguel]

Fixing the cars' design in order to achive closer racing would get this but, on the other hand, would lose the manufacturers and the technically minded following forever.

Why? Why do you think fixing this issue implies diminishing the technical side of Formula1?

No, but one easy way out would be homologating certain parts of the car (such as the underwork (if a slight ground effect were allowed), the diffuser or the middle section of the front wing. I would't like to see the technical side of F1 really compromised because of this.

[marcush.]

Perhaps we should get the aerodynamacists to drive the cars.
They seem to know it all.
There is nothing to beat sitting behind another F1 car lap after lap trying to pass to educate the mind in CAD systems.

+1

why do we get those offs with changeable weather conditions and in the rain?

because of low grip levels or because of unpredictable grip levels?

it seems quite a statement that a driver can judge high grip levels were going off is really knife edge constantly but
on the ohter hand these guys seem to struggle with low grip levels...far from it.
the struggle does not stem from the grip avaialble ,but from the unpredictabilty of the grip acvaialble at any part of the track at times..a small puddle ,a stream of water ..that is what creates the problem and the drama.
driving on snow and drifting is not that difficult to learn ,in fact you have a lot of time when going slow and the grip is not there.

[autogyro]

It is fully compromised as it is.

[Pandamasque]

No, but one easy way out would be homologating certain parts of the car (such as the underwork (if a slight ground effect were allowed), the diffuser or the middle section of the front wing. I would't like to see the technical side of F1 really compromised because of this.

The things you mentioned are already fully or almost standard. F1 is virtually a spec series as it is. The only way is writing fresh simple rules as the current ones are already ridiculously prescriptive.

[jamsbong]

The Melbourne GP was not boring at all and it is mainly because of the bad weather. Having an unpredictable race is more exciting as the teams struggle to figure out strategies on the spot and drivers gamble on how much grip there is.

However, it is clear that we won't have rainy GP every weekend. So I think it is clear that F1 should be more exciting than the last Bahrain race. I've read at jamesallen's website saying manual gearbox and low grip tyres are will result in more mistakes from drivers and these induced errors will end up with proper overtakings.

Low grip tyres is not new and we have seen these before with the groove tyre days and it does not work because the aero engineers simply beef up the aero kit to overcome the lack of grip.

Banning aero or go back to manual gearbox won't do it either coz that will make F1 look like F3 or lesser. It is after all, the pinnacle of motorsports.

What I think should happen as follows:

1. track grip level should not be predictable. that means race track should not be cleaned. instead, run-off area should be improved. that way safety remains good while the driver has to keep in mind of slippery places.

2. Bridgestone should supply only soft and very very soft tyres as they are grippy only for a short period of time. then you'll end up being so slow that you just have to pit. Having more pitstops allows in-direct overtaking which is better than nothing.

3. F1 should go back to ground effect vehicle but retain the open wheel config. This should reduce the problem of "reduce grip when following another car". Otherwise...

4. Allow the front and rear wings to have more freedom. Which gives driver more manual adjustability.

what do you think?

[WhiteBlue]

We cannot have wet or damp races 20 times per year which means probably 16 out of 20 races will be boring. So F1 needs to address these questions.

The recipe is quite simple and has been discussed time and again. Provide a strictly limited downforce that cannot be increased by any means (however you do it), increase the mechanical grip, use fairly hard tyres to avoid marbles and things will be fine.

The problem is to sell it to the teams that neither tyre nor aerodynamic superiority should be the main source of competitive advantage in the future. They have invested in a huge way to build up human and technical resources to compete in exactly the wrong fields for years and so they will not easily let go of that perceived advantage.

It is the job of the FiA to steer the regs in such a way that efficiency gains in propulsion technology will become the field of competitive advantages in the future. For this we need more manufacturers so that all teams have access to competitive propulsion technology. You can bridge the gap for some time by having Cosworth supply the rest of the field but mid term there is no way around having more manufacturers in F1.

The issue with the spec series is not really applicable in my view. F1 always needs limitations to remain safe and naturally with the advances in technology those limitation are spreading through many fields of technologies. But there will always be fields open to competition. In my view it should be propulsion efficiency. No reason why such a race should not be equally exciting as a race for more downforce or more engine revs.