Bernie's sprinklers

[jjn9128]

Watching the classic race replays on f1's YouTube channel recently I've been struck by the fact most of them have been wet weather/interchangeable weather. It's not necessarily the case that wet races always produce a classic race, but the ratio is certainly higher than dry races.

A while back Bernie in one of his typical off the cuff comments suggested sprinklers as a means of spicing up the show, Murray Walker even jokes about it on commentary in one of the races, while I'm not sure that idea has any traction (pardon the pun), there does seem to be merit in reducing the grip of the cars if we want great races.

How else could it be done? Just lowering downforce wouldn't necessarily work as the f2 and f3 races aren't so much better overtaking wise. Harder tyres? Narrower tyres? Crossply tyres? More power to make them rear grip limited? No engine throttle maps (i.e. Just a linear response from the pedal)?

This is all just blue sky pondering as it'll never happen.

[Jolle]

Watching the classic race replays on f1's YouTube channel recently I've been struck by the fact most of them have been wet weather/interchangeable weather. It's not necessarily the case that wet races always produce a classic race, but the ratio is certainly higher than dry races.

A while back Bernie in one of his typical off the cuff comments suggested sprinklers as a means of spicing up the show, Murray Walker even jokes about it on commentary in one of the races, while I'm not sure that idea has any traction (pardon the pun), there does seem to be merit in reducing the grip of the cars if we want great races.

How else could it be done? Just lowering downforce wouldn't necessarily work as the f2 and f3 races aren't so much better overtaking wise. Harder tyres? Narrower tyres? Crossply tyres? More power to make them rear grip limited? No engine throttle maps (i.e. Just a linear response from the pedal)?

This is all just blue sky pondering as it'll never happen.

Wet races are good because the cars are out of their element there. They are not designed for driving in the wet with reduces grip. Some cars and/or drivers do it better than other, so you have different abilities and speed al across the field. As soon as something becomes the new normal, the cars will be designed for that and you'll be back to square one.

[NL_Fer]

Wet race is less tire grip, but also less tire wear and less overheating issues.
Downforce is more important, the 2014-2016 low downforce cars were undrivable in the rain.
Less power can be applied

So to simulate the same effects, cars would need more power, more downforce, smaller but more durable tires.

Or just install the sprinklers....

[Big Tea]

One standard tyre to last the whole season, any change done in the pit during the race by a crew of 2

[jjn9128]

Wet race is less tire grip, but also less tire wear and less overheating issues.
Downforce is more important, the 2014-2016 low downforce cars were undrivable in the rain.
Less power can be applied

So to simulate the same effects, cars would need more power, more downforce, smaller but more durable tires.

Or just install the sprinklers....

Why more downforce? Surely in the wet cars are slower so there's less downforce? The problem I see with just more power is the tyres can probably handle it.

I suppose tyres are the big issue in f1 right now. Even in the 80s the drivers hated the Pirellis.

[jjn9128]

One standard tyre to last the whole season, any change done in the pit during the race by a crew of 2

Wow that's a hard tyre. Was it Jim Clark who once did a full season on 1 set of tyres?! That was a 10-12 race season though

[Big Tea]

One standard tyre to last the whole season, any change done in the pit during the race by a crew of 2

Wow that's a hard tyre. Was it Jim Clark who once did a full season on 1 set of tyres?! That was a 10-12 race season though

They would not have to do the whole season, just pay the pit stop time penalty. A trade off stationery time v low grip on track.

Huge lead? get new tyres and risk a gaffe. Need to make a show? pit on lap 2 and charge through. Plenty of options and all involve grip

[Just_a_fan]

Any system intended to replicated wet weather races needs to be as unpredictable as the weather, or rather it needs to be as variable as the weather.

If you try to do something e.g. a tyre rule, or an engine rule, or a downforce rule, you'll get cars designed to maximise performance in spite of the rule. You need to randomise things so that the teams can't design a car, and associated systems, around it.

You'd be better off scrapping qualifying and replacing it with a grid draw. The cars go in the box and then are drawn out by an official. Or the numbers 1 to 20 are put in a box and the drivers each reach in and take out a number. That's their grid slot.

The benefit of a randomised grid is that the teams will be forced to design cars that are able to race close and hard. It would need tyres that allowed for that too, of course.

A randomised grid would need a change to the points system. Just run it from 1 point for last place up to 20 points for first place. No need to have the logarithmic-style current system where the gap between places increases as you go up the order. That was introduced to encourage drivers to fight for first rather than settle for second. But if you're running second in today's race you'll still want to fight for first because although it's only 1 point more, next week you could be starting from the back and your rivals from higher up. So need every point you can get. Add in a point for fastest lap too, just for kicks but also because if the points are tied at the end of the season, the guy with the most fastest lap points takes the title.

I do think a safety net would be required, however. You don't get the same grid slot twice, therefore a driver can't be unlucky and pick P20 four races in a row, for example, nor can another get pole multiple times.

Imagine the top guys having to fight the rookies for every point. No blue flags except where being lapped etc.

[Big Tea]

Any system intended to replicated wet weather races needs to be as unpredictable as the weather, or rather it needs to be as variable as the weather.

If you try to do something e.g. a tyre rule, or an engine rule, or a downforce rule, you'll get cars designed to maximise performance in spite of the rule. You need to randomise things so that the teams can't design a car, and associated systems, around it.

You'd be better off scrapping qualifying and replacing it with a grid draw. The cars go in the box and then are drawn out by an official. Or the numbers 1 to 20 are put in a box and the drivers each reach in and take out a number. That's their grid slot.

The benefit of a randomised grid is that the teams will be forced to design cars that are able to race close and hard. It would need tyres that allowed for that too, of course.

A randomised grid would need a change to the points system. Just run it from 1 point for last place up to 20 points for first place. No need to have the logarithmic-style current system where the gap between places increases as you go up the order. That was introduced to encourage drivers to fight for first rather than settle for second. But if you're running second in today's race you'll still want to fight for first because although it's only 1 point more, next week you could be starting from the back and your rivals from higher up. So need every point you can get. Add in a point for fastest lap too, just for kicks but also because if the points are tied at the end of the season, the guy with the most fastest lap points takes the title.

I do think a safety net would be required, however. You don't get the same grid slot twice, therefore a driver can't be unlucky and pick P20 four races in a row, for example, nor can another get pole multiple times.

Imagine the top guys having to fight the rookies for every point. No blue flags except where being lapped etc.

While I like the idea, look at races where a Merc, Ferrari, or Red Bull have started from the back of the grid.
within half a dozen laps they are in the top 10, and depending on which car, within half a dozen more laps are within 2 places of the expected position. We cannnot complain at this as it is the top teams doing the job expected of them. As long as they can push they will . there has to be something limiting the amount they can push, which would have to be tyres or fuel.

[Just_a_fan]

While I like the idea, look at races where a Merc, Ferrari, or Red Bull have started from the back of the grid.
within half a dozen laps they are in the top 10, and depending on which car, within half a dozen more laps are within 2 places of the expected position. We cannnot complain at this as it is the top teams doing the job expected of them. As long as they can push they will . there has to be something limiting the amount they can push, which would have to be tyres or fuel.

True, but how often are the guys at the back letting the "big boys" through? I have no doubt that the teams remind their drivers that they aren't fighting Lewis or Max when they're cutting through from the back. No doubt it's a case of "let them through when you can do so with minimal impact on our race against the McLarens [for example]".

In the situation where every car is racing every other car at every race, I think the "big boys" would find it harder to scythe through the field. And even if they do, there will be other battles going on around them which will make the whole field interesting to watch. You would have a RP and McLaren fighting at the front for many laps until a "big team" got up to them. That would be good to see even if the eventual outcome might be less interesting.

If the quality of the entertainment is there, the end result of the race will be less important to many. Sure, a title will be won but if it's happened after 20 races where the fans say "wow, that was a great bit of racing between X and Y before Max Vettel, Sebastian Hamilton or Lewis Leclerc got up to them", maybe that's the best we can expect. We'd certainly see more racing. And surely that's the aim of the game.

[Just_a_fan]

Here's another thought. Perhaps we need TV directors who understand racing. How often have we had the feed cut away from a growing battle to watch someone trundle along the pit lane for a tyre change? Just because the guys on track aren't overtaking at that very moment, doesn't mean they're not lining each other up for the next corner, or the one after that. Anyone who knows racing knows that real overtakes take several corners to set up. The set up is the interesting bit. The overtake itself is just a result.

If they must show a pit stop, stick it in a window. Picture-in-picture has been around since Noah was watching the Flintstones. Why not use it?

[Big Tea]

While I like the idea, look at races where a Merc, Ferrari, or Red Bull have started from the back of the grid.
within half a dozen laps they are in the top 10, and depending on which car, within half a dozen more laps are within 2 places of the expected position. We cannnot complain at this as it is the top teams doing the job expected of them. As long as they can push they will . there has to be something limiting the amount they can push, which would have to be tyres or fuel.

True, but how often are the guys at the back letting the "big boys" through? I have no doubt that the teams remind their drivers that they aren't fighting Lewis or Max when they're cutting through from the back. No doubt it's a case of "let them through when you can do so with minimal impact on our race against the McLarens [for example]".

In the situation where every car is racing every other car at every race, I think the "big boys" would find it harder to scythe through the field. And even if they do, there will be other battles going on around them which will make the whole field interesting to watch. You would have a RP and McLaren fighting at the front for many laps until a "big team" got up to them. That would be good to see even if the eventual outcome might be less interesting.

If the quality of the entertainment is there, the end result of the race will be less important to many. Sure, a title will be won but if it's happened after 20 races where the fans say "wow, that was a great bit of racing between X and Y before Max Vettel, Sebastian Hamilton or Lewis Leclerc got up to them", maybe that's the best we can expect. We'd certainly see more racing. And surely that's the aim of the game.

Thinking on it, when due to a mishap a midfield car starts near the front, they do tend to put in 'better' performances. No doubt due in part to not having to jump out the way when a lead car is half a mile behind them.
Driving a race does seem to make the car look better than avoiding the leaders.

[Fulcrum]

By suggesting sprinklers, you are in effect asking for the introduction of a source of variation outside of the control of teams, or one for which they have little or no current ability to forecast with any accuracy.

Its interesting, because F1 has diminished several major sources of variation over the past 20-30 years; namely, reliability, accident-induced retirement, poor setup, tyre manufacturers.

1) Cars are practically bulletproof relative to every other era of F1, meaning there are far more GPs prone to finishing in the order that is dictated by intrinsic speed of the car.
2) Drivers are more professional, on average. They're better prepared, especially with the extensive availability of simulators or virtual training methods.
3) Cars arrive at GPs these days with default setups that are probably far better optimized than was the case previously.
4) I know we have different compounds now, but the way the rules are implemented there are very limited ways to make practical use of their differences. Having more than one manufacturer, or allowing teams more flexibility in tyre strategy, would likely generate more interesting results.

[Manoah2u]

First of all, in the current slash future financial climate, this is not only rediculous in the form of implementation for circuits, but also for teams to cope with.
that said, rain causes 'unexpected' circumstances. If you're going to bring in sprinklers, you are going to see teams calculate in the possibility of rain / sprinklers,
to better cope with it, which would more or less lessen it's actual impact.

if you want races where the chance of rain would be higher, then all that needs to be done is simply shift the timing of certain races.
Silverstone has rain potential throughout the entire year, sure, but the potential for rain is severly higher if you'd race in march or september/october.

in other words, host those races at a time during the year where rain is more probable.

it would be looking pretty short sighted at things too, as rain has a far higher potential for danger aswell, we only need to look at that faithful Japan race to see
how bad it can get.

Stop inventing artificial spectacles because people are bored and can't appreciate things in a normal fashion. We are all locked indoors now,
stop inventing nonsensical, rediculous and unneccesary stuff because we don't know what to think anymore. and don't back it up by a demented old fool.

peace.

[Just_a_fan]

Stop inventing artificial spectacles because people are bored and can't appreciate things in a normal fashion. We are all locked indoors now,
stop inventing nonsensical, rediculous and unneccesary stuff because we don't know what to think anymore. and don't back it up by a demented old fool.

peace.

Stop being so aggressive. Read the OP's comment:

This is all just blue sky pondering as it'll never happen.

This is just idle chatter. No one here is taking it seriously so perhaps you shouldn't either.