Bahrain GP 2010 - BIC

[Richard]

Was there ever a time that every lap had drama and over-taking back and forth between drivers? (Not just one race...but an entire season)

Yes. In the late 80's there were typically 40 passes per race, also 54% of the drivers failed to finish.

Also, we used to have teams who failed to even qualify. In 1989, 23% of teams failed to get to the grid. So that's a total of 67% of entrants failing to get to the finish.

Nowadays, we see 12 moves per race and only 20% attrition.

See this other thread for details. Also better to have this discussion over there too ... viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7493

[Pedro]

Team-mate duels

Qualification


Race - Fastest lap time


Race - Average lap time


Source: F1news.cz
http://f1news.cz/novinky/34257-jak-dopa ... -bahrajnu/

[Raptor22]

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not disagreeing fully. My point is that something else is wrong if both the FIA, WMSC and FOTA can't unanimously agree on a set of rules that makes the sport, safe cometitive and viable as a product for the fans. DiMontezemolo doesn't have many fans, not even among the Tifosi, but he was the chairman of FOTA not it's only voice. We'll see what Whitmarsh can do, but all other teams must share the blame as well my friend. You can't point the finger at the public face of an entity that has more than one member (In the case of Mad Max, it might be an exception).

Either way, I know we can both agree that a fundamental change is required and it leans towards the arena of freedom of design.

The blame for current f1 lies at the feet of

1) Montezemolo and Ferrari
2) Whitmarch and Mclaren
3) Briatore and Renault
4) Mario Theissen and BMW
5) that baffoon at Toyota

Teams like Williams, RBR at the time were strong armed by their engine suppliers into voting with FOTA. RBR was told, we will cancel your contract which is why RBR tried very hard to get a Mercedes engine. Mercedes as an engine supplier stood by McLaren but their primary interest is in max exposure for the Mercedes brand.

FOTA rejected all the FIA's proposal's for the future f1 regulations. this rejection was lead by Montezemolo and Whitmarsh. It is clear that vested interests were at play all along.

The fans were hooded winked and blinded by misinformation and sided with the FOTA which was a grave error on the part of the public. The result is the F1 sham we have today.

Mosley is no saint but his proposals for F1 were masterful. It will take some more months for more people to realise this.

I don;t give a hoot what Coulthard or Brundle has to say. Their ananlysis is biased and often untruthful.

What F1 needs is to slash downforce via wings.

The basic recipe for overtaking is mechanical grip, less than perfect braking, and driver skill.

mechanical grip:

- replace aerodynamic grip with mechanical grip through limiting the wing incidence immediately. upper wing element maximum should be set to Monza levels and cannot be changed from GP to GP. It remains intact for the rest of the season.

Braking:
replace carbon discs with steel disc for 2011

Driver skills:
scrap semi auto gearboxes, there is no relevance to passenger cars. sequential shift manual boxes are the better for racing.

allow mixing of tyre compounds on the cars so both option and hard can be on one car for a stint.

scrap the mandatory option tyre and use the soft only for qualifying.

bring back the wider front tyre

[raceman]

What F1 needs is to slash downforce via wings.

The basic recipe for overtaking is mechanical grip, less than perfect braking, and driver skill.

mechanical grip:

- replace aerodynamic grip with mechanical grip through limiting the wing incidence immediately. upper wing element maximum should be set to Monza levels and cannot be changed from GP to GP. It remains intact for the rest of the season.

Braking:
replace carbon discs with steel disc for 2011

Driver skills:
scrap semi auto gearboxes, there is no relevance to passenger cars. sequential shift manual boxes are the better for racing.

allow mixing of tyre compounds on the cars so both option and hard can be on one car for a stint.

scrap the mandatory option tyre and use the soft only for qualifying.

bring back the wider front tyre

too much ambitious??

[myurr]

What F1 needs is to slash downforce via wings.

The basic recipe for overtaking is mechanical grip, less than perfect braking, and driver skill.

mechanical grip:

- replace aerodynamic grip with mechanical grip through limiting the wing incidence immediately. upper wing element maximum should be set to Monza levels and cannot be changed from GP to GP. It remains intact for the rest of the season.

Braking:
replace carbon discs with steel disc for 2011

Driver skills:
scrap semi auto gearboxes, there is no relevance to passenger cars. sequential shift manual boxes are the better for racing.

allow mixing of tyre compounds on the cars so both option and hard can be on one car for a stint.

scrap the mandatory option tyre and use the soft only for qualifying.

bring back the wider front tyre

too much ambitious??

I was thinking about my own views on this when I read the James Allen blog post on the same subject. I used to agree with you, but now I think I was wrong.

More mechanical grip is not the answer, and aero is not the problem it was made out to be - and the biggest demonstration of this is how exciting wet races are. The cars need much less mechanical grip along with some reduction in aero. This will have a knock on effect on braking distances and make the cars harder to drive, so it also addresses other problems you mention.

As pointed out in the blog post using harder tyres also reduces reliance on the track rubbering in, so it would be easier to take different lines through the corners etc.

I'm not too bothered either way on the semi-auto gear boxes, I'm all for more driver skill being required but I'm not keen on arbitrary mistakes introduced because of missed gears and the like just because the gearbox is harder to use. But as it would be the same for everyone I don't have a problem with it.

[Shaddock]

Apologies for the crude photochop, but throw in adjustable ARB’s front and back and you should then see cars being able to follow each through the corners. The cars still look like F1 cars (they have wings) but the car behind would not suffer a loss of front aero following the car in front.



Front wing should be aero neutral (flat), with simple endplates to turn the air around the front wheels.

Interesting article here that advocates just the opposite http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/

[rubbergoat]

One thing the driver consistency in a race session doesn't show is the influence of track position. Schumacher was stuck all day behind Rosberg and basically shows the same consistency. When you look at fastest lap he is clearly faster but not by an amount that would allow overtaking on this track.

So you ask yourself how this would have shaken out with fuel stops. My view is that we had probably seen another four or five position changes within the top eight drivers and Rosberg ending behind Schumacher without doubt. There are few driver pairings that make the advantage of qualifying position in the non refueling era clearer than the Mercedes team.

It is clear hat the FiA wants a significant reduction in fuel consumption and even more cost reduction. The FOTA on the other side isn't keen to compete on power train efficiency, KERS and HERS. This antagonism will probably cement the non refueling rule for the remainder of the Concord. It is very bad news for FOM who will suffer most from boring races.

I ask myself if the ban on DDDs and the reduction of the diffusor to 125 mm will be enough to facilitate overtaking next year. The new cars are being conceived right now and going back to refueling for instance isn't a legal option for 2011 any more unless each and every team agrees.

I'm disappointed that a legal downforce limit and movable wings are still not implemented in F1. It is a 100% sure way to make everyone compete for reduction of drag and it makes it possible to reduce downforce equally for all if they find that the level is too high or too low. It would also reduce the fuel consumption significantly. It is a shame that the FiA cannot implement such a solution for the good of the sport.

Yeah - sometimes you see an "Accordian Effect" on the Standard Deviations, which suggests a Trulli-Train scenario. Not so evident here, but I don't know if that's because of the 2010 rules or something else.


//RubberGoat

[Raptor22]

What F1 needs is to slash downforce via wings.

The basic recipe for overtaking is mechanical grip, less than perfect braking, and driver skill.

mechanical grip:

- replace aerodynamic grip with mechanical grip through limiting the wing incidence immediately. upper wing element maximum should be set to Monza levels and cannot be changed from GP to GP. It remains intact for the rest of the season.

Braking:
replace carbon discs with steel disc for 2011

Driver skills:
scrap semi auto gearboxes, there is no relevance to passenger cars. sequential shift manual boxes are the better for racing.

allow mixing of tyre compounds on the cars so both option and hard can be on one car for a stint.

scrap the mandatory option tyre and use the soft only for qualifying.

bring back the wider front tyre

too much ambitious??

I was thinking about my own views on this when I read the James Allen blog post on the same subject. I used to agree with you, but now I think I was wrong.

More mechanical grip is not the answer, and aero is not the problem it was made out to be - and the biggest demonstration of this is how exciting wet races are. The cars need much less mechanical grip along with some reduction in aero. This will have a knock on effect on braking distances and make the cars harder to drive, so it also addresses other problems you mention.

As pointed out in the blog post using harder tyres also reduces reliance on the track rubbering in, so it would be easier to take different lines through the corners etc.

I'm not too bothered either way on the semi-auto gear boxes, I'm all for more driver skill being required but I'm not keen on arbitrary mistakes introduced because of missed gears and the like just because the gearbox is harder to use. But as it would be the same for everyone I don't have a problem with it.

agreed aero itself is not the problem it how it is currently generated, hence i stated aero generatd by wings should be minimised.

What i'd like to see is the return of the fan car... [opens can of worms]

[axle]

Bridgestone could save a heap of money if they just produced 1 hard tyre for the race and a qualifying tyre and let them get on with it. No marbles, longer braking distances, 2 pitstops mandatory.

And it's easily done this year.

[Shaddock]

What F1 needs is to slash downforce via wings.

agreed aero itself is not the problem it how it is currently generated, hence i stated aero generatd by wings should be minimised.

What i'd like to see is the return of the fan car... [opens can of worms]

The fans generate DF at the rear, the FIA need to slash DF levels at the front of the car so they aren't affected by following a car in front, and suffer from understeer. They could scrap the flat bottom of the car rule, and extend the floor of the car forward to the front wheels.

[Raptor22]

fans generate downforce at the centre of pressure.

I do agree with extending the floor forwards to push that CoP forward in conjunction with fans.

smaller front wing, yes agreed


another way to go is to ban underbody splitters

[Shaddock]

fans generate downforce at the centre of pressure.

I do agree with extending the floor forwards to push that CoP forward in conjunction with fans.

smaller front wing, yes agreed


another way to go is to ban underbody splitters

Agreed, but the CoP will be rearward of the driver, fans will just increase overall DF from the floor. Reducing the front wing might not help, as it will still be sensitive to the wash from the car in front. The FIA have tried small front wings, the last two seasons we have had oversize front wings, making them DF neutral is the way to go. If it doesn't produce DF then it can't be sensitive to the car in front.

[Pup]

I don't get why you guys want to reduce the front wing size. You want to go from cars that understeer some of the time to cars that understeer all of the time? If you reduce df on the front wing, you have to proportionally reduce it from the rear wing as well - you'll recall that these things are cantilevered off the bodies. In other words: if you want less df, just say so.

The answer - the only answer outside of eliminating the wings completely - is to get the wings closer to the center of the car - this both reduces their susceptibility to wakes, and also reduces the overall wake the car produces.

[myurr]

Surely slashing downforce is difficult to regulate and manage with todays teams skills and budgets - it's been tried many times and the teams always claw back most of the disadvantage.

The FIA is 100% in control of the tyres, effectively, and can mandate a harder compound that lasts around 1/3rd to 1/2 the race distance. Reduce mechanical grip and it would be more like racing in the wet, it would also allow for sticky wet weather tyres that still benefit from the aero of the current cars.

[Miguel]

If it doesn't produce DF then it can't be sensitive to the car in front.

Not true. If you have a front wing, it can still create lift when you are behind another car. Doesn't the diffuser cause an upwash?