Should F1 cars have their length/wheelbase reduced?

[flmkane]

The only way to go back to cars like the MP4/4 is to use the same rules as the MP4/4 was built to. That's a whole new drive train, for a start. And quite how an MP4/4 would look with current cockpit dimensions and the halo is an interesting thought.

AND get rid of 30+ years of aero knowledge and CFD. A car built now to the 1988 rule book would not look like an MP4/4. The only way to make a car look like an MP4/4 is to regulate - like the 2022 rules are regulated to look a certain way.

Indeed so. That's the problem with those that say we should go back to the old days. The old days with current knowledge would be very different.

That mp4/4000 (can't get a better name) would have abs, traction control, stability control, active suspension, four wheel steering.

A V6 hybrid turbo (twin turbo?) with unlimited fuel flow and refueling (2000hp?), slick tires that are extremely fat, rubber compounds that can go a full race with more grip than a pirelli and all sorts of mutant aero bits all over the body (see 2008 cars)

It's also have launch control, an off throttle exhaust blown diffuser, possibly a double diffuser, maybe a monkey seat, bendy wings (front and rear) and a front wing with 10+ elements and over 9000 cascades.

Also massive barge boards with sado masochist looking sharp bits, with an eye watering number of turning vanes and flow conditioners.

The nose would be snobbishly high and probably look like a late 90s tyrell (or maybe rb7 ish). All wheels would have covers. Brake ducts would look like a knife shop with all the sharp edged aero foils.

Cvt transmission. Maybe there'd be a diff but since it's a McLaren they'd possibly go for the one sided braking solution (ie brake steer, with the added function of governing the differential wheel speed like the mp4 12c)

Oh yeah and no modern crash safety. The cockpit would be thin enough to punch through. Senna would probably have a shorter career.

[Just_a_fan]

How about this for a measure….
Eau Rouge should not be flat…..

Why? What's so special about the Eau Rouge - Raidillon combination? (Eau Rouge is the easy left at the bottom of the hill, by the way.).

[Rodak]

How about this for a measure….
Eau Rouge should not be flat…..

Why? What's so special about the Eau Rouge - Raidillon combination? (Eau Rouge is the easy left at the bottom of the hill, by the way.).

That's the point, it used to take driver skill. I remember watching Jacques Villeneuve when he was trying to take Eau Rouge flat and went off repeatedly. A brave driver trying to go fast. Now it's just turn the wheel and keep the foot down.......

[AngusF1]

Yes, wasn't there a year where both drivers on a team bet each other they could take it flat, and both flew off the road? Similar story with 130R at Suzuka. IMO the rules should be tuned so that these corners are grip-limited, take massive balls and skill to go around quickly and drivers who fail fall off.

[Rodak]

It's funny, but people who have never driven an actual race car have no idea of what's involved. I raced FF1600 and FF2000 in the States, moderately successfully. Even when you thought you had it figured out, there seemed to be this slight need for a confidence lift off the throttle that was incredibly hard to overcome. When you could just plant it and it worked was wonderful and very difficult to do. That's why I hate it when people post about e-racing or whatever it's called and claim it is some sort of driving. It has no connection with the reality of actually driving a racing car and knowing you might go off and hurt yourself. It's just fantasy B.S.

[Just_a_fan]

How about this for a measure….
Eau Rouge should not be flat…..

Why? What's so special about the Eau Rouge - Raidillon combination? (Eau Rouge is the easy left at the bottom of the hill, by the way.).

That's the point, it used to take driver skill. I remember watching Jacques Villeneuve when he was trying to take Eau Rouge flat and went off repeatedly. A brave driver trying to go fast. Now it's just turn the wheel and keep the foot down.......

The point was why single out Eau Rouge - Raidillon? 130R has been flat for as long if not longer so why not pick that as the "must not be flat". Or even Blanchimont, which certainly used to be a ballsy corner back in the day.

[Just_a_fan]

Yes, wasn't there a year where both drivers on a team bet each other they could take it flat, and both flew off the road? Similar story with 130R at Suzuka. IMO the rules should be tuned so that these corners are grip-limited, take massive balls and skill to go around quickly and drivers who fail fall off.

You don't think it takes massive balls to hurl a car at a corner without lifting and hope/believe it will stick? Likewise skill. You only get to go flat if you get the line right, if you don't unsettle the car, if you don't have a moment's doubt at turn in.

It's funny how spectators want the participants to take risks. There is something of the Roman colosseum about that.

[jjn9128]

You don't think it takes massive balls to hurl a car at a corner without lifting and hope/believe it will stick? Likewise skill. You only get to go flat if you get the line right, if you don't unsettle the car, if you don't have a moment's doubt at turn in.

It's funny how spectators want the participants to take risks. There is something of the Roman colosseum about that.

This is all off topic chat, but for me the way to get close racing is to get differences between cars. If every car can go flat through 130R or Eau Rouge or Copse/Abbey...etc then there's little differentiation. That plays out in the times, the slowest to fastest cars are minimally different. You get overtaking in braking and acceleration zones (pre-DRS) because they're areas the drivers can make a difference, so it tracks that increasing the braking/non-flat out zones makes more opportunities for drivers to make a difference.

[Just_a_fan]

You don't think it takes massive balls to hurl a car at a corner without lifting and hope/believe it will stick? Likewise skill. You only get to go flat if you get the line right, if you don't unsettle the car, if you don't have a moment's doubt at turn in.

It's funny how spectators want the participants to take risks. There is something of the Roman colosseum about that.

This is all off topic chat, but for me the way to get close racing is to get differences between cars. If every car can go flat through 130R or Eau Rouge or Copse/Abbey...etc then there's little differentiation. That plays out in the times, the slowest to fastest cars are minimally different. You get overtaking in braking and acceleration zones (pre-DRS) because they're areas the drivers can make a difference, so it tracks that increasing the braking/non-flat out zones makes more opportunities for drivers to make a difference.

Which really means reducing / removing downforce - something that reducing the wheelbase of the cars would achieve. If we halved the downforce of the cars, many corners would be "tricky" and thus overtaking would be more likely according to your model. But we already have series with that level of downforce - the feeder series - and they don't get the viewing figures that F1 gets. Why is that? There's plenty of racing (if by racing one means overtaking) but the drivers aren't household names. So is it necessary to have lots of overtaking to make a series worth watching?

[jjn9128]

You don't think it takes massive balls to hurl a car at a corner without lifting and hope/believe it will stick? Likewise skill. You only get to go flat if you get the line right, if you don't unsettle the car, if you don't have a moment's doubt at turn in.

It's funny how spectators want the participants to take risks. There is something of the Roman colosseum about that.

This is all off topic chat, but for me the way to get close racing is to get differences between cars. If every car can go flat through 130R or Eau Rouge or Copse/Abbey...etc then there's little differentiation. That plays out in the times, the slowest to fastest cars are minimally different. You get overtaking in braking and acceleration zones (pre-DRS) because they're areas the drivers can make a difference, so it tracks that increasing the braking/non-flat out zones makes more opportunities for drivers to make a difference.

Which really means reducing / removing downforce - something that reducing the wheelbase of the cars would achieve. If we halved the downforce of the cars, many corners would be "tricky" and thus overtaking would be more likely according to your model. But we already have series with that level of downforce - the feeder series - and they don't get the viewing figures that F1 gets. Why is that? There's plenty of racing (if by racing one means overtaking) but the drivers aren't household names. So is it necessary to have lots of overtaking to make a series worth watching?

That’s the rub isn't it. How do you qualify or give value to entertainment vs being the fastest motorsport. The LMH cars are slower than LMP1s but have generated some intrigue.

[jjn9128]

You don't think it takes massive balls to hurl a car at a corner without lifting and hope/believe it will stick? Likewise skill. You only get to go flat if you get the line right, if you don't unsettle the car, if you don't have a moment's doubt at turn in.

It's funny how spectators want the participants to take risks. There is something of the Roman colosseum about that.

This is all off topic chat, but for me the way to get close racing is to get differences between cars. If every car can go flat through 130R or Eau Rouge or Copse/Abbey...etc then there's little differentiation. That plays out in the times, the slowest to fastest cars are minimally different. You get overtaking in braking and acceleration zones (pre-DRS) because they're areas the drivers can make a difference, so it tracks that increasing the braking/non-flat out zones makes more opportunities for drivers to make a difference.

Which really means reducing / removing downforce - something that reducing the wheelbase of the cars would achieve. If we halved the downforce of the cars, many corners would be "tricky" and thus overtaking would be more likely according to your model. But we already have series with that level of downforce - the feeder series - and they don't get the viewing figures that F1 gets. Why is that? There's plenty of racing (if by racing one means overtaking) but the drivers aren't household names. So is it necessary to have lots of overtaking to make a series worth watching?

That’s the rub isn't it. How do you qualify or give value to entertainment vs being the fastest motorsport. The LMH cars are slower than LMP1s but have generated some intrigue.

[Just_a_fan]

This is all off topic chat, but for me the way to get close racing is to get differences between cars. If every car can go flat through 130R or Eau Rouge or Copse/Abbey...etc then there's little differentiation. That plays out in the times, the slowest to fastest cars are minimally different. You get overtaking in braking and acceleration zones (pre-DRS) because they're areas the drivers can make a difference, so it tracks that increasing the braking/non-flat out zones makes more opportunities for drivers to make a difference.

Which really means reducing / removing downforce - something that reducing the wheelbase of the cars would achieve. If we halved the downforce of the cars, many corners would be "tricky" and thus overtaking would be more likely according to your model. But we already have series with that level of downforce - the feeder series - and they don't get the viewing figures that F1 gets. Why is that? There's plenty of racing (if by racing one means overtaking) but the drivers aren't household names. So is it necessary to have lots of overtaking to make a series worth watching?

That’s the rub isn't it. How do you qualify or give value to entertainment vs being the fastest motorsport. The LMH cars are slower than LMP1s but have generated some intrigue.

That's a whole question on its own, isn't it? Ultimately, motor racing is about producing the fastest car you can and having it driven as quickly as necessary to win every race you can. It's a thing done by people for their own pleasure / interest. That others might want to watch it is not the reason motor racing exists. I think we sometimes forget this and put the cart before the horse - the reason, of course, is that some people try to make money out of the people that watch the races.

But we must never forget that racing doesn't exist for the money-makers, they exist for themselves only and they care not one jot about the racing so long as they're making money.

That's why F1 is televised so much and other series aren't - F1 has a draw that other series don't. And that is partly (mostly?) that F1 is quickest series. The glamour comes from the association with being the quickest racing cars in the world. I say "quickest" and not "fastest" because other cars are ultimately faster in terms of top speed, but nothing gets around a proper race track in as short a time as an F1 car. The LMPs got close recently, of course. Look at the comparison of the IndyCar and F1 around COTA from a couple of years ago. (The IndyCar will be faster in superspeedway trim but F1 cars don't run on ovals, but if they could I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't quicker if only because they have so much power compared to IndyCar).

[mclaren111]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jHmp6- ... =ChainBear


Video is about changes to tracks, but blame the lenght of cars a lot...

[politburo]

How about this for a measure….
Eau Rouge should not be flat…..

Why? What's so special about the Eau Rouge - Raidillon combination? (Eau Rouge is the easy left at the bottom of the hill, by the way.).

That's the point, it used to take driver skill. I remember watching Jacques Villeneuve when he was trying to take Eau Rouge flat and went off repeatedly. A brave driver trying to go fast. Now it's just turn the wheel and keep the foot down.......

I think we all know it is really not that easy. Drivers still use their skill going through that part, modern cars just generate more downforce, even GT cars can take that corner flat.

[politburo]

This is all off topic chat, but for me the way to get close racing is to get differences between cars. If every car can go flat through 130R or Eau Rouge or Copse/Abbey...etc then there's little differentiation. That plays out in the times, the slowest to fastest cars are minimally different. You get overtaking in braking and acceleration zones (pre-DRS) because they're areas the drivers can make a difference, so it tracks that increasing the braking/non-flat out zones makes more opportunities for drivers to make a difference.

Which really means reducing / removing downforce - something that reducing the wheelbase of the cars would achieve. If we halved the downforce of the cars, many corners would be "tricky" and thus overtaking would be more likely according to your model. But we already have series with that level of downforce - the feeder series - and they don't get the viewing figures that F1 gets. Why is that? There's plenty of racing (if by racing one means overtaking) but the drivers aren't household names. So is it necessary to have lots of overtaking to make a series worth watching?

That’s the rub isn't it. How do you qualify or give value to entertainment vs being the fastest motorsport. The LMH cars are slower than LMP1s but have generated some intrigue.

Perhaps it may be like this 2022 onwards. Whereby the cars are slower in corners and very fast on the straights, which may lead to it being more driver-dependent. They could've removed power steering, this would be a great change.