Following Formula 1’s Bahrain season-opener Motor Sport’s readers were among race fans around the world who made it clear how disappointed they are with Grand Prix racing’s 2010 edition. We’ve heard the same complaints for years – boring racing, no passing, and cars which all look the same running on an incredibly featureless, soul-sapping track. As many people asked: what happened to the FIA’s special overtaking group? Obviously, they failed miserably in their task.
Some people ask why CART’s old Indy or Champ Cars and the IRL’s current Indycars put on a better show with closer racing and more passing. One reason is that when F1 went to flat bottoms more than 20 years ago CART stayed with a Lotus 79-style ‘tunnel car’. Mario Andretti insisted that flat-bottomed cars were much too pitch-sensitive and more difficult to drive in close quarters, therefore discouraging close racing and passing. Mario’s concept was an integral element of CART’s and then Champ Car’s rules until the latter’s demise in 2008, and was the primary reason why Champ Cars put on a better show.
Of course, the IRL went down an entirely different route. Contemporary IRL cars are seriously restricted on horsepower and downforce, and are designed to run around in a pack. Passing is extremely difficult but the cars do tend to stay close together much like in a NASCAR restrictor-plate race. Yet the IRL’s formula has proven spectacularly unpopular as the series struggles to draw crowds to most races and its television ratings have plunged to miserable new lows.
A key element in the IRL’s formula is the massive amount of drag designed into the cars by the rules. In discussing the new Delta Wing Indycar concept Chip Ganassi told me that designer Ben Bowlby emphasised the excessive amount of drag required by the IRL’s rules. “Ben pointed out to me that an Indycar has more drag than a stock car!” Ganassi exclaimed. “I said, ‘How can an open-wheel car have more drag than a big, full-bodied NASCAR?’ That’s not the way it should be. But that’s how we, as rule-makers, have allowed it to be.”
Surely the people who write the rules have defined far too many of the specifications for today’s racing cars, F1 included. Darn near every element of the cars are specified by the rulebook. Today, there’s no room to create something that’s at all innovative like a rear-engined Cooper-Climax or a Lotus 79. Instead, we’re supposed to drool over the latest aerodynamic refinements to wing endplates and so forth. But these things are way too arcane, if not trivial, for most race fans. Clearly, people are tired of watching the same basic package that we’ve seen for the past 20 or more years.
Something radical is desperately needed, and that’s why I think the Delta Wing concept is a great thing, just to shake up everyone’s thinking. This spirit drove the sport for most of its history but there’s no longer any room for out-of-the-box thinking. If Colin Chapman was alive today, he’d shake his head and walk away, disgusted with the spec car syndrome that has infected the sport at every level, F1 again included.
Of course, if the rules were to be opened up F1’s team principals would complain that it would be too expensive and would result in too many different solutions and probably in one concept proving much quicker than anything else, making all others obsolete. No doubt there’s some truth to this riposte, but that doesn’t mean the sport isn’t in dire need of inspired technical leadership to recreate itself in a way that intrigues and excites more of us.
My very thoughts exactly. The spectacle of F1 is more like an over-worked carnival side show these days, tired and lacking. We need to see the rule book thrown out and technical freedom reign once again. Perhaps they can limit the teams to a budget, but let them go nuts under the cap.
From what Gordon is saying F1 won`t provide overtaking and decent “Balls Out” racing until flat Bottoms are done away with.
The Delta Wing looks like an April Fool to me , too!
I don’t think unlimited budgets to tinker around with is good for F1 if it wants to avoid a 2001-2004.
Marlboro, as an example, is paying Ferrari – i.e. Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro – $1 Billion between 2005-2011…no wonder di Montezemolo want’s FIAT to field 3 cars and have no restriction on budget.
I would to if my bank account was over-flowing while others suffer(ed) during financial meltdowns!
One way to increase “on track action” is to decrease driver aids, starting with the re-introduction of manual gearboxes!
Part of Formula One is about driver input and if a driver fluffs a gear under pressure…well, he should pay the price.
Shouldn’t he?
There was a time frame of a few months late last year where Ferrari had the following drivers on their “books”:
Raikkonen
Massa
Alonso
Schumacher
Fisichella
Badoer
We don’t need for one team with a $Billion dollars from Marlboro/Shell/Santander to be able to corner the market on more than half the Aces on the grid AND ALSO to corner the market on the magicians and wizards of the technical side of the business…and then go ahead and employ Team Orders (as they did in the first half of last decade)!
What’s being proposed in the article (“to create more room to be more innovative”) is not, in itself, the best answer because one or two teams with all the money in the world will buy all the “innovative talent” the grid has to offer.
We don’t need that so there has to be some “caps” in place to avoid a Monoply or an Oligopoly of Two – a Duopoly – situation.
The amount of common sense in this article is like a cool breeze on a scorching day. Why is it so rare? Why do the rule-makers have to be told that endplate refinements don’t get racing fans excited?
In F1 as in IRL, a huge re-think is needed. Those who believe that mandating a second pitstop will suffice are dreaming. They are also conceding defeat – they might as well just say “okay, we accept that these cars are fast, but that they’re not actually RACING cars. So, we’ll devise some way other than racing to determine the finishing order.” Pathetic.
The problem with the overtaking group was the assumption that the solution to a problem caused by too many rules was to create more rules. It doesn’t help that the FOM model seems to be a blend of medieval jousting tournaments (in which only the nobility/super-rich can afford to compete) with old-school soviet-style control of every aspect of everything.
Dropping rules may not be ideal, but it’s better than what we have.
This is also an innovation problem. If racing is the test-bed and development environment for technologies that will eventually find their way to road cars, what happens when only certain types of innovation are permitted?
We certainly will see a weaker pace for road car development, which has implications for efficiency, materials, engineering..
Restricting the level of innovation for motorsport restricts innovation for all transportation. You end up with the tragic road car market of today, where only onboard computers are progressing and not the basic mechanics of the automobile, as came from earlier generations of motorsport.
The heart of this article and the people commenting is in the right place. God knows I agree for I can’t forsee bothering to watch all races save for the traditionally exiting venues: Spa, Silverstone, Monza, Suzuka, Interlagos and Monaco if the show keeps on being as dull as the one in Barhein.
That said, I do think people are making a lot of fuss about it…it’s just been one race and people are jumping to conclusions and discarding this season, lets wait and see how the cars behave in other circuits first. And altough I’d love a good, cheap, solution for the “boring race” problem, the fact is F1 engineers and designers are too clever for the health of their own sport. Give them freedom and the ones with the most resources WILL prevail, and maybe by a crushing margin. Maybe a small plucky team will figure out something fiendishly clever, but someone with a couple of hundred million in their budgets will have no problem in copying the solution or hiring the guy who tought about it.
Maybe a budget cap is the best way to go, even if it is very hard to implement/audit. You could combine that with a policy within the teams that a certain percentage(40-50%) of their design staff had to be college interns or people freshly out of college and you always have new blood coming in with fresh ideas. The best ones would stay and the other ones would have a first class job in their resumée. Worker rotation would be very high…but it could be a win win situation, if properly implemented.
Excellent article and some very good comments. I can be described as “technically challenged”…finding the jack is easy, but changing the tire is another story…but, here goes…
There must be some kind of formula, unless we want to get back to the early days of Can-Am (which I wouldn’t mind at all), but it can be a very general, or basic one, which would allow designers and constructors plenty of room for innovation (I believe that is an important part of the DeltaWing concept).
As to engines, I like the idea of changing from a capacity/power formula to a set amount of fuel formula, leaving the engine builders to deal with that as they like.
Obviously, the manufacturer and corporate (Red Bull) teams would have a tremendous advantage unless a budget cap was in place…no problem there as long as the cap isn’t too low.
So, we have the perfect race car, but we still need good tracks to run them on, which is, I guess, is Mr. Ecclestone’s realm…I don’t have a clue how to deal with that problem.
I still think that the CIRCUITS need improving. The new venues are just not cutting it for overtaking. The circuits are becoming slower and simply not conducive to overtaking.
You want to improve the racing? Ban wind tunnels, CFD, shaker post rigs, CAD CAM, etc.. Give the designers a pencil, a drawing board, and a slide rule, get rid of the ridiculous hard tyre/soft tyre rubbish, and most of the other stupidity that Max Mosley inflicted upon the sport and let them get on with it. After that, STOP changing the rules every fortnight trying to improve the “show”!
‘Mario’s concept was an integral element of CART’s and then Champ Car’s rules until the latter’s demise in 2008, and was the primary reason why Champ Cars put on a better show.’
Wasn’t someone moaning about Andretti’s content in the Motor Sport podcast?
I want to watch a race. I want to see overtaking. What the cars look like is secondary.
When does the MotoGP seson start?
Form the bits I’ve seen of the Indy car opener it looked far better than the Bahrain GP.
Rules are made for bending, yet not breaking.
ok 1st up ban wings front and back and have no rules from the back of the front wheel to the front of the back wheels…no fans though or moveable bodywork…and have a BHP limit say 800 but any engine type as long as you use non fossil based fule but with the same rateing…no re-fueling pit stops…limited no of tyres per race how you use them is up to the teams…thats it
Thank you Mr. Kirby for bringing this subject up. There are more ideas in the comments here than there have been in F1 since the start of this century.
The sad truth is F1 is all about the money not racing. The last great innovation in chassis was active suspension in the early nineties and the last advancement in engine performance ( remember what that was?) were pneumatic valves. What F1 engineers spend their budgets on has very little application to real cars. It seems the largest concern of the tech staffs in F1 is to maxamize the efficiency of their salaries.
I agree F1 needs fewer rules. How about a min. weight and dims. the wheelbase must fit in along with a caloric formula for the amount of fuel to be allowed for a race? I’ve always thought claiming rules were a great way to control costs. You think someones cheating, buy their car. It would go into eskrow until the end of season and then it’s yours.
Another thought, MotoGP has no aerodynamic downforce, maybe that’s the secret, it sure works for bikes.
although I agree that the show is a bore, lets not forget that many, many GP races have been processional, right down to the beginnings of the sport. ceratin drivers like Alberto Ascari and Jimmy Clark would drive away into the distance leaving the rest to scrap for second…
I agree with you Dave; plenty of races in the past were ‘processional’. But there is a big difference between a race that is processional because the faster man is out front, and one that is processional because the faster guys are bogged down behind slower cars that they can’t get near – much less try to overtake – because of aero turbulence.
If the FIA hadn’t bent over backwards last year and found double diffusers legal I wonder if we’d be in this sitaution now. Interesting article from Frank Dernie on another website who claims that today’s cars have too much mechanical grip thus preventing overtaking. His argument is that more overtaking occurs when mechanical grip taken away I guess he is right to a certain extent especially when it is wet. However no matter which way you look at it today’s lack of racing will drive fans and, more importantly, sponsors’ money away so Bernie you had better wake up to this and fix it real fast.
Sorry, I’m only 20, but I’m pretty sure that a race in the 60′s, even with Clark being miles ahead, was hardly boring. Just to be able to go into the paddock, actually talk to the pilots, smell the gasoline….Even be able to watch cars routinely 4 wheel drift corners, that must have been a spectacle in itself. Today’s races are boring because there is no action. Overtaking was the last real action you could watch. Watching cars lap around circuits is just no longer fun if overtaking isn’t happening. They all look the same, sound the same, and pretty much “act” the same, as far as spectators are concerned.
Regarding the whole double diffuser issue, Lucas DiGrassi mentioned the other day that they are NOT the cause for lack of overtaking.
Have to agree.
Restriction and tight regime formatting are culprits, history is telling us this.
It’s not just F1 or IRL.
NASCAR, NHRA Pro classes, many junior formula, the pointy end of sports cars are all being dominated, and competitive on track action decimated.
Why? The spec or near spec formulas coincide with the “Bore-o-Meter” going off scale. Someone always aces the game if parameters are too tight.
If some FFord is good, the “uber-version” is no so hot.
Fi needs engine configuration options, elemental bottoms and simplified wings.
Pit stops have amplified the whole teams involvement on race day, and contributed much of the “overtaking” too. “Passing” on track has been diminished for awhile.
Costs of the rigging, staff, strategic modeling et al have mooned the price of F1.
We also have IRL looking for “a new” chassis supplier, and a new engine rule. Swift, Lola, Dallara, Penske with turbo V6′s and unblown V8s should all have a role.
The emphasis transition from “sanctioning organ” to “governing body” has accompanied the decline in competition.
Where we have all won from technical advance, is safety and that is a great gift.
Still if excitement’s desired and you’ve admiration for driving talent to spread about, catch a” World of Outlaws” winged sprint car meeting sometime.
We have to see what Melbourne brings and hope.
The “technical advancement”, “road-relevance”, “planet-friendly/green technology” thing has proven to be just lip service…
…KERS was *exactly* the above but the Powers That Be, after having digested the bigger part of the financial pill in late ’08/early ’09, decided to dust it for 2010!
Unbelievable.
BMW, especially, were an embarrasment in this respect…Any wonder they left with egg on their faces?
At least KERS was “road relevant”, “green”, and “innovative”.
At least KERS gave Ferrari or McLaren or Renault or BMW the option to run it, and Williams and others the option not to run it … At least it *was* available.
At least KERS provided *some* possibility of over-taking another car and, thus, off-setting the obvious disadvantages of incorporating it into it’s package!
The bulk of the costs had already been absorbed for heavens sake!!!
So much for innovation and for being eco friendly and relevant!
HA!
My opinion:
F.1 has lost its relevance. In 1988 for example, an F1 car with 800+ BHP can go full distance on just 150 litres. Active suspensions were and still are highly relevant for applications outside racing.
What Mosely and Eccelstone have been trying to do is turn F.1 into single seater NASCAR – primarily good TV show.
For F.1 and motor racing in general to grow and improve, the following is needed:
1. Relevance: The sport has to be relevant to the bigger picture.
Why not set a fuel limit of ie 150 litres to last a full race. Fuel efficiency is an extremely relevant subject
Why not allow Turbos? Why not allow non Internal combustion engines? Turbines?
Reverting to pencils as someone had mentioned is not relevant. Who designs or constructs with pencils today?
2. Safety: Rules should ensure that the driver cell and the spectator areas are as safe as possible.
3. Open rules: Apart from the safety cell, max length width & height dimensions, and the max fuel consumption amount, what is the point of the other rules?
4. Fresh faces: Are we getting the best talent in F.1 or the richest? I don’t know. Could Frank Williams, Bruce McLaren or Jack Brabham found successful team today?
5. Engines: open. Only restriction is that they must last a race distance with allotted fuel.
Greetings, Eddie
I’ll defer to Frank Dernie who ought to know. Less mechanical grip sounds good to me. I’d like to see and hear the drivers having to modulate the throttle like a Moto GP bike, so lots of power particularly at lower revs, with less tyre grip, so the cars are sliding on acceleration, and squirming under braking. The downforce is too great, so maybe get rid of all the wings. And, KERS was a good idea for the green/road-relevance idea, but the problem was that is was not mandatory. You can’t have a race when some have it and some don’t.
Mr. Read,
Well last season some has KERS and some did not and it wasn’t bad for the competition, it made some races interesting.
I’m showing my age but it used to be that some teams had more powerful engines (they made them that way on purpose!) and some had better tires (and some didn’t) and so they won races, sometimes by minutes or even laps and it was something to see. We used to call it competition and when the money men came in and the lawyers came after, that was the end of that. Without relevance F1 became entertainment and not very good entertainment at that. I must admit the drivers still give it a goand that’s the only grace today’s F1 has.
good point Mr. Coffman, processions of days long gone are far different from the ones we have today as produced by the current aero package.
get rid of the wings! make these guys at least appear to be driving on the edge of a razor blade, much like I did during my autocross days in a sports car. (US SCCA members who are subscribers will know what I’m talking about.)
Fewer rules, but better ones that “make sense” are the way to go. F1 needs more power (torque), so 3 liter engines with no pneumatice valves (irrelevant to road cars) and allow only a specificed amount of fuel. Slash the dimensions of front wings dramatically (the new ones are ugly anyway). One small wing element on the rear, but more importantly, put a regulation about the size of the “hole” or “wake turbulence” that any car can have behind it. Let the designers free reign within a spec of simple parameters.
What is with all the talk of “relevance”? Does anyone suggest that football should be relevant? Rugby? Cricket? It is a sport! Perhaps we should have the cars powered by windmills so that they’re relevant. Is there relevance to a Formula Ford race? What part of my last Swift made it to my current road car? Is Formula Ford less exciting because of it? I want to see drivers taking a machine to its limits and matching their skills against each other for the pure joy of doing it – for the pure joy of watching it. Maybe Formula One has passed the point of being able to provide that anymore. Perhaps I should stick to Formula Ford – or football. /rant
oh this is a much better thread than the other one that Nigel started-
John – absoloutely agree – at least 3ltr engines – cylinder no and configuration left to engine builders decision – fantastic-
can’t see the point of the small engined ‘whizz bangs’
IRL- understand why you made the decision to be a one make forumalee – but sorry the wrong choice, having 3-4 different chassis manufacturers and 2-3 different engines would just improve it wholesale –
F1- has always been a sport you need to see live and that has been the biggest single mistake since the 70′s – when you see these babie slive it puts them into perspective- but as i mentioned in the other column do away with the flat bottomed areo things and let them have freerer reign
Today’s amazing race helps confirm my earlier point that the Circuit matters a lot…. What a show!
Yes. And rain!
Having been an avid F1 supporter from the 60′s thorough the 80′s, I gave up watching due to the monotony of the races. Fast forward to 2009 where my son insisted on watching a NASCAR race. Say what you want about the low tech approach and that you can still compete in your 50′s, you can’t deny the closeness of the racing and the number of lead changes per race. Add in the driver personalities and the accessibility that fans have to the pits, drivers and race communications and it’s not hard to see why it’s the premier racing series in the USA. I’m a convert and only wish I could see some of these elements introduced into F1. My feeling is that F1 is all about the car, whereas NASCAR is about the driver, crew chief and spotter. And let’s not forget about the yellow cautions – since the race essentially resets after each caution, you essentially remove the monotony by having a brand new race start up again. With an average of 10 -12 cautions per race, especially the 3-lap shootouts that can result at the end of the race, it keeps the races exciting and reinforces why NASCAR fans are one happy bunch.
I love the BTCC format too, so here’s my idea for reinventing F1 – how about dividing each race into 2 or 3 heats with no pitstops and no tire changes – just flat out racing with the finishing order in each heat determining the starting grid in subsequent heats. Maximum racing with maximum excitement – what’s not to love? Bernie, you can try this out when you bring F1 back to the States….
The wet track made for a bit of good old fashion racing. Once the dry tires came out we were back to the parade. TV coverage followed Lewis Hamilton’s charge but that was a clear track and when he got to the leaders, bang, there is just another car in the parade. Couldn’t pass anyone. I was glad to see that one of the Lotus and one of the HRT cars were still running, should have watched them, just as interesting if not more interesting. At least we know they are striving to improve and speed up. Everyone else seems happy to get a spot and hope for a problem to the leader to allow them to gain another spot. The same story in Australia as Bahrain. Leader drops out a surprise winner, the parade leader is not going to make it. So much NOT so fun to watch.