Oh and modified March's or March copies were also know as Heskith, Williams, Wolf, Eifeland etc etc
Oh and modified March's or March copies were also know as Heskith, Williams, Wolf, Eifeland etc etc
Adrian_Thompson wrote: Senna was another scum bag. HE frequently drove people off track and he even admitted to taking both himself and Prost off in 90 to win the championship. The year earlier when they collided it was because Prost just refused to be bullied by Senna's normally 'move out of my way or we will collide' tactics. That time Prost didn't give so they both went off. YEs Prost could have moved over, but why should he. Also on Senna his championship in 88 was almost as much as a farce as this stupid double points for the last race BS they are doing for next year. For 88 only the best 11 results counted, so despite Prost finishing 1st or 2nd in every race he finished and out scoring Senna 105 to 94 points, Senna won the championship. Senna is the second least deserving douchebag to be called a world champion.
THIS 100%!!!!! Everyone treats him as a driving God, but in reality, he was a very dangerous dude.
Adrian_Thompson wrote: I am in an F1 fan minority that I don't actually mind DRS. I think it's a result rather than a problem. The issue is cars are so 'dirty' you can't get close enough through the corners to be able to pull out and pass in many places as you lose down force and overheat you bubble gum tires. This one should have been fixed this year. Massively reduce the down for available from the wings and body but give cars much more mechanical grip from bigger real tires. Then they can run closer to each other and pass without needing an aero advantage. I'd also look at lengthening stopping distances, carbon brakes are here to stay, but less aero grip would also mean longer stopping distances and help further separate the Vettles from the Crashanado's
I don't like DRS, but I agree a lot with the rest of this post (and I can see your point about DRS being a reasonable if unfortunate response to the problem I'd rather see solves with mechanical grip).
I can't stand DRS … the car in front is basically defenseless … you never see a re-pass .. so even if they are equal (relatively speaking) the lead car is SOL …
with the coming of the "new" turbo era .. I'd love to see the push to pass be the way to get the extra umph ….
the car in front can then use it to defend … strategy comes into play … ( I've said this before and was flamed pretty badly … regardless … I still think it would be better than DRS)
and I'd like to see larger/wider tires .. more mechanical grip and have them take back some of the wings and air dams … etc …
Maroon92 wrote: So when 15 Cooper chassis contested the 1960 season, they were all Works team cars? I don't think so. The first Williams chassis were built by ISO, and the first Hesketh was a leased March chassis. There have been customer teams buying chassis for as long as the sport has existed.
The way I've seen it, there have been far more unique car makers in F1 than not. Yes, there have been years where chassis suppliers helped multuple teams, but even in the 70's, there were more individual cars than customer cars.
That, and when I started watching F1 in 81, they were all unique per team, and no customer chassis. And it has been that way ever since. 34 years of a custom chassis rule is pretty long.
You see it otherwise, and that's fine.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
RE: The safety wall of text
While I agree on some of that I do think that removing the barrier of fear from a driver's mind lowers the bar for having "the will to win" at all costs. When you see vintage footage of two men in chemical bombs fighting at 180mph, leaving black tire marks on the exit wall lap after lap, cheating death - It IS exciting. You know in your darkest heart as a fan and a driver you can't toe up to that bar and hang.
A man who knows he can hit that wall and walk away becomes a guy will try a low percentage gamble. How many times have we seen Maldonado, Sato, ... (long list of also-rans) just stuff it in there and hope for the best?
Don't get me wrong - you can still see greatness in a driver's skill today. Seb is a machine. You never really know if they could measure up if they had to face the consequences like the greats of the pre-safety era who drove to the brink in spite of the very real possibility they would die for a mistake. It is the same reason we celebrate fighter pilots. Or astronauts. Or Navy SEALs. Facing death mano-a-mano and living to tell the tale is something we measure heroism by. For better or worse.
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
Here's a question, and I don't think there's an answer. It's certainly not meant to contradict what you've said (which I agree with, by and large).
How many people who raced in the deadlier eras would still have done so if they had seen modern safety, or grown up with it? How many who think the '60s were mental would still have done it readily if that's just the way racing cars was?
Not sure there's a point to this. Maybe it's just something I tell myself so I feel better about thinking how I could never do what they did.
Senna a God? No. A dangerous driver? No. No more dangerous than anyone else he competed with. Was he a talented driver. Yes. Just reviewing in car video and old race footage confirms that. A bit eccentric? Yup that too. Douchebag? No. I have a lot of admiration and respect for Senna, but have yet to elevate him to God like status.
ransom wrote: How many people who raced in the deadlier eras would still have done so if they had seen modern safety, or grown up with it? How many who think the '60s were mental would still have done it readily if that's just the way racing cars was?
Sir Stirling Moss. He said on many occasions that he liked the danger at that in later years he less interest because the danger was gone. Now, in the end he finally quit racing a year or so ago because he said for the first time ever at the LeMAns historic he felt afraid, but he was on record of saying racing should be dangerous and he probably wouldn't have started if he'd been 20-30 years younger.
Yes I agree it's odd and he's probably a) the only one and b)not being entirely truthful, but he said it more than once
More mechanical grip is coming.....smaller front wings, no more "stepped" noses, rear wing losing lower beam ect......
TAParker wrote: Senna a God? No. A dangerous driver? No. No more dangerous than anyone else he competed with. Was he a talented driver. Yes. Just reviewing in car video and old race footage confirms that. A bit eccentric? Yup that too. Douchebag? No. I have a lot of admiration and respect for Senna, but have yet to elevate him to God like status.
Many many disagree, he was a dangerous driver, more dangerous than his contemporaries. JYS famously called him out on it in an interview once. I don't care how good people like him or Schumacher are/were on track, or what saints they were off track with their charity work etc, at the end of the day people who deliberately pull E36 M3 like those two did on a regular basis deserve zero respect from anyone.
TAParker wrote:
And that's a good thing, but I think they should allow the wings to 'appear' bigger, but put more restrictions on the shape, end plate, winglets upon winglets and reduce the mechanical grip even further.
TAParker wrote:
As has been posted before, even less downforce is to be expected that normal. Based on the energy usage rules, articles in Racecar Engineering have most of the engine makers expecting Monza kind of downforce at Moncao, just to reduce the drag.
It's going to be pretty interesting to see how the cars deal with the energy rules. It will be even more interesting to see some more radical energy recovery systems being tried on F1 cars- such as the heat recovery to electricity tech. That could have some pretty massive impacts on passenger cars.
Agreed. I can't wait to see how this all shakes out.
Lotus has asked for a delay in testing already......also seems FI is looking at some funding issues, due to questionable business practices? Going to be an interesting year all around.........
Adrian_Thompson wrote:TAParker wrote: Senna a God? No. A dangerous driver? No. No more dangerous than anyone else he competed with. Was he a talented driver. Yes. Just reviewing in car video and old race footage confirms that. A bit eccentric? Yup that too. Douchebag? No. I have a lot of admiration and respect for Senna, but have yet to elevate him to God like status.Many many disagree, he was a dangerous driver, more dangerous than his contemporaries. JYS famously called him out on it in an interview once. I don't care how good people like him or Schumacher are/were on track, or what saints they were off track with their charity work etc, at the end of the day people who deliberately pull E36 M3 like those two did on a regular basis deserve zero respect from anyone.
does that include Dale Sr. ? 
wbjones wrote: does that include Dale Sr. ?
Who's he, a club racer? 
TAParker wrote: Perez confirmed at Force India
That's OK by me. I think Hulkenburg and Perez will make a good pairing at Jordan. They have both shown a lot of potential and it will be good to see them head to head. I have nothing against either Sutil or DiResta, both have been fast, but not earth shattering. DiResta has been faster and the patriotic Brit in me wants to see him stay, but he hasn't set the world on fire and his attitude has not engendered him to people. I'd still like to see him come here and replace cousin Dario at Ganassi. Where next for Sutil? WEC? DTM?
Adrian_Thompson wrote:TAParker wrote: Perez confirmed at Force IndiaThat's OK by me. I think Hulkenburg and Perez will make a good pairing at Jordan. They have both shown a lot of potential and it will be good to see them head to head. I have nothing against either Sutil or DiResta, both have been fast, but not earth shattering. DiResta has been faster and the patriotic Brit in me wants to see him stay, but he hasn't set the world on fire and his attitude has not engendered him to people. I'd still like to see him come here and replace cousin Dario at Ganassi. Where next for Sutil? WEC? DTM?
I THINK Sutil may wind up at Sauber.......
Adrian_Thompson wrote:wbjones wrote: does that include Dale Sr. ?Who's he, a club racer?
not any more 
Is F1 on the way too, and does it need to implode?
OK ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, light the fire, pour your favorite beverage and pull up a good chair, I’m about to ramble on…a lot!
The frankly laughable announcement that the FIA wants another team to join in the frankly unaffordable current situation has got me thinking. I’m a lifelong F1 fan, but I’m really concerned where the sport is going. More and more teams are having financial issues and really only Ferrari, Red Bull(s), Mercedes and McLaren can afford the current unlimited funding required. Everyone else has to take on pay drivers. As an aside I have nothing against the principle of pay drivers, all drivers either have sponsorship or a patron to help them. It can be argued that Lauda bought his way in, Hunt effective bought his way in with Hesketh on and on, but that’s another thread. The issue comes when drivers have to bring a major part of the running costs of the team to get in the door. Williams have really had to whore themselves out to the highest bidder for years now, look what’s happening to Lotus, Sauber etc. These are teams with wins and podiums in the last couple of years who can’t afford the drivers they want. Remember the glory days where you had to have pre-qualifying to find out who could even try for a place on the Grid. Racing and Formula one especially have always been expensive, there’s nothing wrong with that. I want it to be the best sport in the world, with the competition coming from the best drivers, engineers and teams, but I also want people to at least have a shot of trying to get on the grid without needing the GDP of a small country to even get there.
I don’t see budget caps as being effective. Heck, LeMons and Chump car racing can’t cost control a $500 race series how could the FIA or anyone truly police F1. When you have major manufacturers or multinational corporations running teams the lines will get so blurred you could hide anything. Where does McLaren group end and McLaren Mercedes team start when it comes to making the ECU’s and programing them for the team? Let alone trying to work out who or what is Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula One Team Vs. Mercedes Benz Vs. Daimler AG when it comes to the engine, its installation etc. I don’t see how anyone can come up with a workable cost cap or personal limit etc.
Costs have gone up and up and up. We’ve had small ‘wins’ when testing teams were cut, but would could argue that set up a whole new unintended arms race of simulators and teams of modelers.
I could argue that the implosion has already started. HRT couldn’t cut it and no one wanted to buy them. Caterham and Marussia are struggling. Lotus and Sauber haven’t been paying their bills. What would happen if during the course of the 2014/15 season Caterham, Marussia, Williams, Sauber, Lotus and Force India all folded for financial reasons. It’s incredibly unlikely I admit, but not entirely beyond possibility. Could that almost be a good thing?
Circuits / Countries are also starting to drop. Turkey was a great race, but couldn’t keep going, Spa has had financial troubles, India is gone, and Spain has dropped off, Korea (thankfully) is in the history books. Right now there are dozens of facilities that are lining up to lose money so Bernie, FOM, FOA etc. are set there, but once Putin stops paying in Russia, New Jersey falls through, Mexico can’t stump up the paseos for upgrades etc. will races drop off too?
While Bernie has undoubtedly done a massive amount of good for the sport it truly is ridiculous that one group has got so much financial control over the sport. Does any other sport have such a large disparity in what the promoters take in and what the facilities, teams and organizers get out? At this point I’m actually hoping for an implosion. I look at what’s happened to Indy car post-split and reconciliation. That series was all but dead a few years ago. The series keeps trying to shoot itself in the foot even now, but there is no doubt when you watch the product it’s getting stronger and stronger. With the ever spiraling costs of European based racing, even below F1 (GP2, FR3.5 etc.) it’s becoming a more attractive series for foreign drivers and getting a stronger and stronger driver base. Could F1 emerge a better sport and product from a similar (although not quite as catastrophic I hope) implosion and re-birth?
If F1 as we know it imploded with 2-3-4 teams folding and a couple of venues going bust in a short time (say 18-24 months) Would that be enough to bankrupt FOM and make the shareholders run scared? I’d hope so. Then something could rise from the ashes with more team input. Let’s face it the costs to sanction an event are ridiculous, and do the main sponsors really want to have empty grandstands in countries with no real interest in motor racing. Forget the ‘it’s for TV’ aspect, how much time do we spend on each broadcast (I’m including BBC, Sky, and the US coverage here, I watch all of them at different times) talking about lack of support and empty seats at some venues? The teams and sponsors aren’t immune to that. Where would we go if the teams and main sponsors had the vote on countries / venues rather than FOM forcing it on them?
Also on cost, as I’ve alluded to I don’t’ think a cost cap is sustainable or workable, I think we need a set of rules that prevents spending, rather than rules that attempt to limit spending on regulations that you could spend unlimited money trying to optimize. Also most diehard fans love the technology as much as the racing so we definitely don’t want a spec series or customer chassis, but I think there is a lot that can be done.
Example Powertrain The ship has sailed on this one for the next five years, but the FIA has just driven massive amounts of unneeded cost into the powertrains with the various forms of energy recovery. Serious environmentalists will always hate F1 and any form of racing as a waste of energy no matter what. Formula E will get some level of pass, but as soon as 1kw of energy comes from an on board internal combustion engine people will decry it as a planet killing extravagance for rich people. For the true diehard fan the energy source is interesting and KERS/ERS is great, but we love IC engines. For the casual fan, some level of ‘hybrid’ technology is enough to make them feel good about it. Will anyone beyond the hard core nut cases like us even know the difference between last year’s KERS and next year’s ERS? I doubt it very much. So the next time the engine regs are up for review I’d say go back to a simpler (off the shelf even) KERS. To make it more appealing and ‘appear’ more green (let’s face it appearance is what this is all about). Also insist that anytime the car is in the pit lane it must use electric power. Mandate on board starters and allow the option of start stop so you could run silent down the pit lane (yes there are cooling issues there). Beyond that I don’t see too much issue with a smaller capacity turbo engine which is rev limited, within a couple of years I can easily see people meeting the stricter races per engine regs.
Example transmission. One huge advantage of turbo engines, especially with the electric assist due to KERS or ERS is that you have a very very flat torque curve. Severely limit what the teams can do with transmission. Limit them to however many gears you want either 6, 7 or even 8. But those ratios can’t change, they are what they are, heck you can mandate them if you want. Then allow three final drive ratios for slow, medium and fast circuits. That’s it; they have to be nominated at the start of the season and can’t change. Make the diff’s mechanical or at least self-contained. No active diffs, no on track changes. Once you’re on track what you have is what you have and it’s effectively an open loop system.
Example Aero. There was a great piece on I think it was the Motorsport Magazine podcast with Gary Anderson. He talked about how cost is being driven up by the new rules getting rid of the lower wing element. This means that all the teams had to throw away everything they had done to date to make new wings that were centrally mounted. As they have 3-4 different type of wing they use at different circuits, the 3-4 totally new wing designs they have to start over from scratch. I think they could kill two or even three birds with one stone here. 1) The could seriously seriously limit the down force available from the wings which would help reduce the dirty air. 2) It would aid cars running closer to promote passing and lessen the need for DRS. 3) Less down force would also lengthen stopping distances, again opening up passing opportunities and making the difference in driver ability and style more apparent for the spectators 4) you could make potentially wider but simpler wings which would look a whole lot better. Next year’s front winds are getting narrower but look just ridiculous (too visually narrow compared to the rest of the car, and just comic book looking in shape) You could also make the cars more attractive and make a better (flatter, easier to read) billboard for sponsors. Look at front wings through the late 80’s and early 90’s. They had 2-3 elements, flat endplates and were of a constant dihedral. The rules could simply specify a total surface area, limit the wings to either two or three elements and make them have zero dihedral, no curving up or down. Keep the mounts and end plates flat, or a specified simple shape. The elements are fixed and cannot be changed from circuit to circuit, all you could do is use different end plates to change the spacing and angle (remember these end plates are now flat. The end plates must be able to accommodate all the mounting angles so you don’t have different designs for different circuits; the same parts go to every circuit.
Example tub / driver safety. It’s essential to F1 that all teams make their own tubs, but why have 11 (or hopefully 11, 12 even 13 or more) different driver cells. Make the driver cell part a spec piece that is the same for all teams made by a single company; heck this is ideal for Dallara as they are not in F1. Also make it big enough that it could hold a 6’2” (sorry 1.88M for the French) driver weighing 180lb’s (82kg) driver. Give a minimum driver weight and any ballast to get up to that has to go in the seat mid back, not down low.
There are lots more examples I could think of including reducing barge boards, air inlets, outlets, body shape etc., but I’ve already rambled on way too long.
So to sum up, what I’m half afraid of and half hoping for is that F1 will price itself into oblivion and collapse. FOM will implode and go bust then allow a decent set of rules which will prevent cubic spending on an aero arms race so we can realistically see 12, 13 even 14 teams vying for a place on the grid, including a more equitable share of income to the teams and tracks.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one I hope some day you'll join us and Formula one will be as one (Sorry John)
Good points Adrian, but I think the problem is far, far larger than just F1. NASCAR has been hemorrhaging fans for a decade, the NHRA is nearly dead (1000' racing turned off fans, no more Ford, etc), and of course F1 seems like it's about to implode at any second.
Honestly, all 3 have the same mistakes in common. They all started ignoring what made fans want to watch. Close racing, interesting cars, and a certain level of brand loyalty. Seriously, think about it.
Though NASCAR has been tube chassis/aero bodies for 30+ years, back in the 80's the cars were 2 door, RWD, V8's so there was that level of "Win on Sunday / Sell on Monday" still. The racing was insanely close. Then came the restrictor plate, then FWD cars, then 4-doors, then the COT and the "Chase". With every change more sponsors, manufacturers, and fans dropped out.
The NHRA was HUGE. They could pack the stands for 3-5 days straight and do lots of TV and got tons of press. Then the aero war started in the Funny Cars, Top Fuel became a Spec class (of for the days with Garlits' SR 30 aero car, the mono-wing, etc). Pro Stock copied NASCAR and painted themselves into a corner where the identical cars are all jellybeans. 1000' racing and their own Chase. Again, fans, sponsors (Castrol!!), and manufacturers leaving in droves.
You've covered F1's faults well.
So how do we fix it? Easy, go back to what worked stupids!
NASCAR can go Pony Car: Mustang, Camaro, Challenger, and FRS could all have a go as a production body over a tube chassis. Production based V8's will bring the power down and the stock bodies will bring the speeds down, so they can lose the restrictor plates. Kill the artificial Chase. Yota could do Lexus (GS Coupe? Isn't that new and V8?) Throw in more than 2 road races and capture the hearts of Trans Am lovers everywhere. Do a few dirt races, too.
NHRA is the easiest one to fix. Go back to a 1/4 mile (and cut out the tracks that can't hack the safety), make Top Fuel a really insane unlimited class on basically everything, including more than 1 motor, turbos, etc. Make the blocks be absolutely as-delivered from the factory and watch the speeds drop down. No more 500ci billet HEMI's, you have to run a 2014 production something.
The floppers can pretty much die. There's no love there anyway, especially with no Force/Castrol/Ford. Replace them with Pro Mod, and let the Pro Mod guys make their own rules.
Pro Stock can copy NASCAR and bring in the Pony Cars and production motors, heck loser the tube chassis, too. Make it open to everything though so there'll be PS GT-R's. Who wouldn't want to see a 7-second GT-R take on a 7-second Shelby?!?
Of course this is supposed to be about F1, and the answer there is a LOT harder. Adrian you have some good ideas. I'd like to see the return of massive fields, privateer teams, and pre-qualifying (a 4th qualifying session?) I think the regulations are just too damn tight, and that's what's causing the out of control spending. I'd go back to a basic 4-wheel "box" (min/max wheelbase, overall length/width/height, and track) with open wheels and cockpit. Let the teams decide how they want to build it out. Two element only front and rear wings with min/max width, depth, and chord. No active aero. Open up the engines to whatever they want;. Ferrari wants a NA V12? Sure. McLaren wants a TTV8? Okay. Honda wants a turbo 4 with a turbo the size of a VW? Go for it! My answer here again would be production blocks. That makes the envelope so much smaller for power that it would real in the craziness, and really make the fans involved again. How cool would the little teams be, joining up with smaller car companies to get at a good block? I'd love a Sky-D based Mazda in F1.
Anyway, that's what's rattling around in my head.
K.I.S.S. - it isn't anything new 
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
I dig it. There are a couple of points I differ on a little, but in principle, I can see the "it's so bad that nuking it and starting over might be okay" angle...
I think I'd want to keep active diffs. That's production-car-possible, and worth developing. Unless it will never happen in the face of doing 80% of the job with brake-based faux-diffs...
On the narrow front wings, aesthetics aside, do we gain anything in terms of running close without breaking wings off on the other guy's rear tire quite so often?
There was an article in Racecar Engineering a few months ago about about some teams' Command Centers. They had big-bandwidth connections from the track to Apollo mission style rooms full of engineers analyzing everything during the race. Modern racing benefits from data analysis as never before, and I don't want to put the genie back in the bottle. But somehow I feel like the spirit of the thing is broken by that sort of brute force approach; there is one driver, one lead race engineer; I can see having a few other people at the track looking at the data, but I want there to be an element of individual insight and knowledge to it. I don't even know exactly how they use 20 engineers simultaneously, but it feels like racing by committee...
It's a very, very difficult problem, because fundamentally apparently winning in F1 is worth enough money to justify mind-boggling expenditures, but only competing or having a distantly outside shot at a podium is worth much, much less. So only teams which win, or are perceived as likely to win, and which will get the sort of coverage given to an acknowledged contender, can hope to put together the kind of funding needed to win. It becomes a bootstrap problem: If you don't win, you can't win.
On the NASCAR front, that's an interesting idea; what's the power difference between a moderately breathed-on Coyote or LS and a restrictor-plated current NASCAR engine?
You'll need to log in to post.
