When it comes to tech in racing where do you draw the line? How much tech is too much?
Formula One needs to be more entertaining and less technology-driven, Renault and Ferrari team bosses agreed on Thursday.
“I would say that Formula One, in my opinion, does not need as its first priority technical challenge,” Ferrari’s Jean Todt told a Monaco Grand Prix news conference.
Some manufacturers are eager for the sport to remain the pinnacle of motor racing through cutting-edge technology, while others and the governing body are adamant that costs must be slashed to ensure smaller teams can compete and survive.
What do you think?
Once you let technology “out of the bag” it’s very hard to control. Thats why the FIA has proposed spec. ECU, tires, etc. Easier to define and police spec. parts.
Without going into age, let’s just say I’ve been a fan of “modern” F1 since it started! Though I continued as a fan of F2 for the first couple of years of the “new” Formula.
The best formula has always been the simplest. All the crap veneered onto the sport by the FIA has been offered up for 2 rationales:
1. Slow down the sport.
2. Make it more “affordable”.
You only need 2 regulations to govern the first: engine size and whether it’s normally aspirated or not. After that, it’s up to the engineers and designers. Let the tyre companies design what they want. Let the aero and suspension dudes have at it.
If someone comes up with a surprise winner and no one else can catch up for a half-season or so — terrific! They deserve to enjoy their efforts. Uniformity and parity are dull governors for motorsports.
The second rationale is simply that — more crap slathered over the PR cake. Whatever you come up with, the constructors with the most money will throw the most money at whatever constraints the FIA conjures up. At the moment, Ferrari, Renault, Mercedes, BMW, Honda and Toyota will still have the biggest budgets. They certainly don’t have the same results. The little dudes still have the same problems. Mostly fundraising.
As far as I’m concerned — though I haven’t turned a wheel in anger in decades — they should bring back some of the longer tracks. The problems in medical transport and communications that brought about this agglomeration of mirror image short tracks — aren’t as critical, today. I’d love to see a full length Nurbergring or Spa, once more.
Having grown up in the south, I have always been a fan of autoracing. I still prefer the gentlemen style of open wheel although I have fond memories of listening to MRN describe the action of Rusty Wallace and Dale Earnhardt grinding fenders angainst one another at a short trak like North Wilkesboro.
As far a technology goes, I am not a fan of the new cars in IRL or F1 that have traction control, ABS, and automatic transmissions. To me, that take the factor of the driver out of the equation and puts the emphasis on the manufacture that can build the most reliable and best ECM or other computer devices. Aryton Senna is probably rolling in his grave considering that he is the only man that I know that could negotiate a hairpin curve, shift gears and throw the bird at an opposing driver all at the same time.
In other words, more car crashes.
This debate has already been fought at least once in the recent history of F1. During the early years of computer use in race cars, the computers were everywhere. The computers controlled the transmission up and down shift points, had traction control, anti-lock brakes, continuously adjusted the suspension, etc, etc. The computers even memorized the course and knew what settings to use for the upcoming corners. It was getting to the point that it was impossible for the inspectors to review all the code for a modern F1 racer for each race (let alone every car). Practically all the driver had to do was steer. The pit crew and computers did the rest.
On top of that, with data link communications with the pits, the programmers could even change the settings in the car “on the fly” during the race from the comfort of their observation booths.
At the end of the day, it was not the best driver that won but the team with the best programmers. The FIA banned many computer controls calling them “active aerodynamic devices” since they actually changed the attitude and ride height of the car hundreds of times each lap (wings on F1 cars are required to be rigid and fixed).
I was not upset to see the computers go. However, I don’t want to see F1 become NASCAR’d like the IRL has become. The cars in IRL are as inexpensive as they can make them while still being somewhat interesting. What they created is just plain boring. These cars are just very expensive shifter karts.
The sad thing is that MotoGP (the F1 of motorcycle races) is now getting into traction control and possibly ABS. Still, with MotoGP, the biggest deciding factor is still the rider, not the machine. Not so much with F1.
Usually, but not always, the team with the most money wins. But that has been true for racing since practically day one. This principle also applies to baseball, basketball, and football teams.
Two Words: ” City Streets”, or “Identical Cars”, or Production Cars”… let them go out a week before each race and go buy a car off the show room and then go out and race it… Now that would be interesting! Let’s call it Production F2! Fun no?
Hey I would like to throw in a vote for new track designs: Why stay with straightforward ground tracks? What I mean is, that these cars can easily travel upside down pinned to the track. This offers all kinds of possibilities for the future of the sport. What about outward-banked corners? What about s-curves with grates in the concrete to eliminate the downforce/suction to test the drivers’ mettle?
If you couldn’t tell, I’m just another adrenaline junkie teenager 😀
#6 — it’s called A1GP. Not a bad season. The French won.
Personally, I’m a fan of the lower class dirt trackers, as I spent two seasons trying, in vain, to catch the guy I laughed at from the stands, saying if I couldn’t do better than that I’d stay home. Finally, I said to hell with it and went home, while he went on to become a perrenial winner at Summerville Speedway. Then they paved the track and I haven’t been back since.
The way I look at it, have one class where the only rule is ya gotta have four wheels, and at least two of them have to touch the track at least once a lap.
Below that have as many classes as needed for the marketers, the old school crash artists, the queasy spectators and the kids.
Whatever technology it takes to allow passing, even if it they have to dumb down the aero to the point where speed is lost. Or widen spots on the track.
Watching the parade that tends to result now (allowing for blue flaging of the filler marques) is really dull.
I’m hoping the aero changes set for next year will a) slow things down (which will bunch things up more), and b) allow for significant passing from a drafting position.
And, yeh, I’d love to see the old full distance Nurbergring be restored.
The only reason FIA puts limits on the cars is to stop driver splatter on the track. I say take the driver out of the car and let tech take over. Put the driver out of the car and into a simulated cockpit to drive remotely. Then let the best tech win. It would be one hell of a video game to watch
Bob, full scale RC cars? Interesting concept. It sure would make for some spectacular crashes. No more run off areas or gravel traps!
With the research into UGVs (unmanned ground vehicles), we may one day see races with autonomous driverless cars. That would truly mean that the best programmers would win. Maybe that would give us the technology to finally have autopilot for the street.
As for upside down tracks, you would virtually guarantee that drivers would die. Just because the cars can theoretically drive upside down doesn’t mean anyone would actually want to try it.
If FIA wanted to slow down the cars, all they have to do is ban wings. That would take it back to the old rolling coffin days of the 50’s and 60’s. Of course, that will never happen. The aerodynamics are part of what makes F1 so interesting.
The upside-down car thing was featured in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics… sounds neat, but I’d rather see Moller Skycars racing through the sky… 🙂
Upside down cars. OH MY! Sounds like the master plan of the France family to bring paritt to the NASCAR NEXTEL Series.
Pop, don’t get me started on Moller and his SkyCar. That guy has made a lifelong career out of selling stock in his company while building a single highly questionable aircraft that will likely never go to production. IMHO, he is a con-man selling gullible people on the idea of owning the Jetson’s bubble car.
Greg, if you like racing across the countryside, check out the Isle of Man TT motorcycle race. Those guys are NUTS! Great racing, though.
I, too, would like to see F1 race the old Nurburgring road course. It is far too dangerous for those guys, though.
If you like street cars, check out the Speed Touring Car Championship or virtually any SCCA sponsored race. Most all of them are door slamming production cars prepped for the track. I personally like Grand Am and American LeMans.
I feel they should loosen the restrictions on areodynamics, and tighten/curb the use of electronics.