Radio regs for 2016

[ARF1]

Formula 1, on the other hand, can be as much as 10s off the pace set by cars a decade ago.

So from what I can find, fastest ever qualifying lap at Melbourne is 1:23.919 by Vettel in 2010 (albeit Michael's in race lap record from 2004 is 1:24.125 so he could have gone faster if they'd qualified on low fuel in those days).

Be that as it may, Lewis' pole last year was 1:26.327; with super soft tyres and a year's development, I'd suggest a low 24 is quite possible this year, so that's really quite close. Given current estimates, they'll smash that next year.

Does it really make a difference? If other things remain the same - things which predetermine how the driver races - is it really important if fastest laps are being set?

I think bhall's point was race pace. The fastest (race) lap in 2004 was a 1:24.125. The fastest (race) lap in 2015 was 1:30.945; basically 7 seconds per lap slower on a sub-90 second lap.

I don't think it matters if the cars are setting lap records every year, the problem is they drive at 80% of their capacity during races (compare the pole and fastest race lap in 2015 for example). I don't think radio messages are bad per se, the problem is that the cars have to be driven to scientifically determined deltas, instead of being pushed to the limit. The driver just executes an optimal lap time to protect tyres and save fuel. That's the problem; that's boring.

Would we care that the pit wall was passing information about engine settings or temperatures if the drivers were racing flat out? Probably not. The situation right now is the pit wall prevents drivers racing flat out, because it would break the cars (tyres, fuel etc.).

[f1316]

Totally agree that the issue is one of drivers not pushing flat out - these cars neither look nor sound fast, largely because they're not pushing during races.

In fairness, the first quote from bhall about MotoGP was about a pole lap and the second about a top speed - in both these regards the current cars are pretty decent this year > even better next.

But again, I completely agree that the real issue is the perception of speed. I was watching the 2001 Australian Grand Prix and the commentators were marvelling at how fast the cars looked - and, even now, they certainly do. But Michael, leading the race on relatively low fuel was doing 1:30s and 1:29s. This year's cars will likely go faster on full fuel tanks, but the issue is not the times themselves but how easy it all appears.

The issue here is, in my opinion, more the tyres than the fuel (there's always been a degree of fuel saving - quite a lot even in most people's 80s heyday) and as I've said a million times before, the cause of the tyre issue is the lack of refuelling. We would never have had 2010s issues with few stops if not for the refuelling ban, and it was that that prompted the soppy tyres.

Nonetheless, the point I'm really making- on topic - is that, everything being exactly as it is with all the much bigger problems still existing, would we rather an engineer tells the driver when to save fuel and tyres on the radio or the driver figures it out himself? I suggest the latter.

But in no way is it the most pressing issue facing the sport - could not agree more.

[bhall II]

But again, I completely agree that the real issue is the perception of speed. I was watching [a race from 15 years ago] and the commentators were marvelling at how fast the cars looked - and, even now, they certainly do. But Michael, leading the race on relatively low fuel was doing 1:30s and 1:29s. This year's cars will likely go faster on full fuel tanks, but the issue is not the times themselves but how easy it all appears.

"There are a number of factors that have made the racing less dramatic, and I think no one likes it," Alonso insisted.

Told that he will be 36 when his potential F1 retirement comes along in 2017, Alonso smiled: "I think you could race these cars until you are 50."

"They are very undemanding. With the old cars you could not sleep some nights at first due to physical fatigue. We were doing 1.16s and now it's 1.26s, so it's very undemanding."

I miss the days when F1 cornering speed was not only faster than anything else, it was faster than anything else by leaps and bounds. The ability to tame the beast and ride that razor's edge was what separated F1 drivers from us mere mortals. Asking them to press buttons and turn dials without prompting from engineers can't even vaguely replace that.

This is a stupid rule. Everyone will eventually realize it. But, as we've seen countless times before, it's a lot easier to make the mistake than it is to fix it.

[f1316]

But again, I completely agree that the real issue is the perception of speed. I was watching [a race from 15 years ago] and the commentators were marvelling at how fast the cars looked - and, even now, they certainly do. But Michael, leading the race on relatively low fuel was doing 1:30s and 1:29s. This year's cars will likely go faster on full fuel tanks, but the issue is not the times themselves but how easy it all appears.

"There are a number of factors that have made the racing less dramatic, and I think no one likes it," Alonso insisted.

Told that he will be 36 when his potential F1 retirement comes along in 2017, Alonso smiled: "I think you could race these cars until you are 50."

"They are very undemanding. With the old cars you could not sleep some nights at first due to physical fatigue. We were doing 1.16s and now it's 1.26s, so it's very undemanding."

I miss the days when F1 cornering speed was not only faster than anything else, it was faster than anything else by leaps and bounds. The ability to tame the beast and ride that razor's edge was what separated F1 drivers from us mere mortals. Asking them to press buttons and turn dials without prompting from engineers can't even vaguely replace that.

This is a stupid rule. Everyone will eventually realize it. But, as we've seen countless times before, it's a lot easier to make the mistake than it is to fix it.

We are rather bouncing about with regard to the point that we're making here; to summarise:

- granted that it's 15 years ago but the point here was about the perception of speed - I.e. Exactly what you're saying: that it's driving on the knife edge that matters not the specific time the cars are doing. I've also demonstrated how this year's/next year's cars will be close to/far below record times (perhaps depending somewhat on the track) - in order to address your quotes on MotoGP breaking records- and how this points to ultimate speed not really being the issue .

- I also miss those things- never been in dispute; again, as your quote proves, it's the ease with which cars are driven to predetermined deltas that's the problem. Not knowing what those deltas at any given time are - and hence being more apt to push - is surely preferable?

- I can see from what you've said why lots of other rules that have affected the nature of how the cars are driven are 'stupid'; not why this one is. The question is strict radio regs vs no radio regs - not old f1 vs current f1 (that's easy)

Anyway, I suspect we'll never agree so agree to differ, I guess

[bhall II]

Briefly, while the performance of current machinery is indeed comparable to previous eras at tracks where downforce somewhat takes a back seat to straight line speed, the gulf tends to be significant elsewhere. (Start at Sepang, and go from there.)

What's even more damning, in my view, is the fact that we've seen several instances of the slowest F1 cars being outpaced by the quickest GP2 cars. That never happened before in any context.

2015 Spanish Grand Prix...


All of 'em within 107%, too.

The new radio rules - certain to be subverted with coded language - cannot mitigate the sport's distinct lack of speed, be it perceived or otherwise.

I'll put it another way: I disagree with the implementation of these rules, because I think they embody one more cheap band aid solution for a sport that's already little more than a loose collection of cheap band aid solutions. Not only does it compound the problem, since such rules are often incongruent, if not altogether ineffective, it further delays any chance for real reform. That's not good for a sport with a fanbase that's shrinking.

[bhall II]

I'm really not trying to pile on here. It's just an observation...

The changes stem from stricter enforcement of regulations requiring each driver to drive his car ‘alone and unaided’, and mean that Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg will play a greater role in the outcome of Grands Prix.

“There is much less information and data being provided to the drivers during the races - on engine modes, on tyres and strategies,” [Toto] Wolff told F1.com.

“So the natural outcome of these regulation changes is that it will be again much more down to the drivers to take decisions.”

“That means that the direct competition between the two is guaranteed and will be more intense.”

Perhaps this rule is intended to boost the (frankly, pathetic) soap opera that is Hamilton v Rosberg.



"Pay no attention to the sport's staggering lack of competition! F1 is awesome!"

[f1316]

Sorry, but a couple of things from my side also then:

- Spanish GP: we've seen 1:23 flat in testing on soft tyres. Now that these are allowed at race weekend you're talking within 2.5s of what I believe is the fastest ever lap in this config (Massa 1:20.584 in Q2 2008). Agreed that 8 years on we shouldn't be behind at all, but the indications are that next year's measures will indeed mean the record is broken. If pure speed is the goal, then this is being addressed

- Toto's comments: this is really exactly the initial point. You may call it a pathetic soap opera - you may even be right - but I think it's hard to argue that if they do end up being allowed to have divergent strategies (big IF) it would add to the interest.

[bhall II]

No need for an apology. It's a conversation.

In any case, I don't think lap records are going anywhere anytime soon, even with next year's planned overhaul....


(Click to enlarge)

Bear in mind that performance gains at each race will be directly proportional to the circuit's downforce requirements.

Like DRS, Pirellotteri tires, tire compound rules, convoluted qualifying schemes, etc., it's a gimmick. If it has any effect at all, the effect will diminish over time as teams/drivers converge upon the optimum solutions - like DRS and Pirellotteri parameters, for instance - and the sport will be no closer to resolving its fundamental problems.

Plus, it's likely to inspire teams to develop toward greater automation, which will have exactly the same effect on the competition between drivers as the actions this rule is ostensibly intended to stop.

(And yes, I realize that referencing a MotoGP qualifying time and F1 fastest laps is a bit inconsistent. I'm not trying to cherry pick here; the context of my thoughts just changes.)

[Shooty81]

No need for apology. It's a conversation.

In any case, I don't think lap records are going anywhere anytime soon, even with next year's planned overhaul....

8 tenths in Spa seems quite possible. Even for this year maybe.

[bhall II]

Lap records are set during a race, not qualifying.

[f1316]

(And yes, I realize that referencing a MotoGP qualifying time and F1 fastest laps is a bit inconsistent. I'm not trying to cherry pick here; the context of my thoughts just changes.)

Right, but the thing is race laps is not apples with apples, due to fuel regs. You can argue that the end of the race is comparable but it isn't really: a) there's less incentive for the fastest car - the one at the front- to go fast at this stage of the race (vs. Approaching a fuel stop) since he's already in the lead; that was not the case when a faster car might have a different fuel strategy b) likewise, the very existence of the bigger fuel tank slows things down.

A better comparison would be 2010 where fastest race lap at Barcelona was 1:24.357 on lap 59 by Lewis. That's a 4 second gap from last year (likely to be more like 3 or less this year, I'd suggest) - still too much but not 10.

When assessing the regs for next year, it's not just downforce but *grip* that we need to factor- some will come from downforce but a lot also from bigger tyres.

I think you and I agree that refuelling is a positively vital thing, but it's a different conversation, I guess.

You may be right that the teams will find ways round the radio ban, but I would argue it should be a constant battle to enforce "alone and unaided" - much as it has been with moveable aerodynamic devices, it's a moving target that needs constant review. Doesn't mean you shouldn't try though.

Personally I'd just get rid of ship to shore entirely - exactly why I brought up MotoGP to begin with. If the cars kept breaking down, they'd find a way to stop that.

[strad]

the problem is they drive at 80% of their capacity during races (compare the pole and fastest race lap in 2015 for example). I don't think radio messages are bad per se, the problem is that the cars have to be driven to scientifically determined deltas, instead of being pushed to the limit. The driver just executes an optimal lap time to protect tyres and save fuel. That's the problem; that's boring.

Would we care that the pit wall was passing information about engine settings or temperatures if the drivers were racing flat out? Probably not. The situation right now is the pit wall prevents drivers racing flat out, because it would break the cars (tyres, fuel etc.).

I agree with all you say, but our problem is how do we get it back?
Right up front you've gone from a time where in spite of the danger, by their own admission, they would have paid to be able to drive to a time where safety and money rule.
I understand that with the way people are raised today that they are very (overly) concerned with safety but I tend to agree with Moss and his quote that is my signature : "Motorsport without danger is like cooking without salt".
Between the perceived lack of danger and not racing hard, F1 has become bland.

[bhall II]

Right, but the thing is race laps is not apples with apples...

In context, the reasons behind F1's current lack of pace are irrelevant. Slow is less demanding than fast. Full stop.

I don't think anyone doubts the potential of current machinery. But, potential is worthless if conditions don't allow it to be exploited. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I remain skeptical about the proposed changes for next season.

Not only does F1 have a fairly poor track record of achieving stated goals through technological reinvention - Overtaking Working Group, refueling ban, etc. - increased downforce, rolling resistance, and weight will make the cars inherently less fuel efficient, but they're not going to be allowed to carry additional fuel. So, what gives?

It seems like they just don't think these things through.

[strad]

what's wrong with F1 is contained right here:

US Grand Prix pins hopes on Taylor Swift as event locks in for 2016
US Grand Prix organisers are hoping singer-songwriter Taylor Swift will attract new fans and a sell-out crowd to their Formula One race in Austin, Texas, after the venue was confirmed on Wednesday

When they rely on stars to attract fans rather than the racing, you have it in a nutshell.

[Just_a_fan]

The whole green agenda hasn't helped the excitement. If they carried another 30+ kg of fuel and could increase the fuel flow rate it would help. When you consider the non-green costs of the whole F1 circus (flying around the globe etc), the green message is already lost.

More fuel, "better" tyres would at least make the cars faster and increase the natural chances of things happening on track.