The Tripod of F1

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules

Pick the two that are most important for your vision of F1

Open Wheel / Open Cockpit
33
34%
The Fastest Cars In The World
21
21%
Able To Race Closely
44
45%
 
Total votes: 98

User avatar
Exediron
Posts: 8140
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

The Tripod of F1

Post by Exediron »

Simple enough premise, basically.

Quite often when new rules are proposed we see people talking about what are diametrically opposed goals they want from these new rules. F1 cars have to be the fastest in the world -- can't let WEC get too close! -- but they also need to be able to overtake and race closely, like IndyCars. Oh, and they have to retain the DNA of F1 -- open cockpits and open wheels.

But what if you had to choose only two of those? Which two are the most important for your personal vision of F1? If it came down to it, would you prefer F1 to stick to its DNA at the cost of speed, or at the cost of racing ability (like we have now?) Or would you be willing to set aside that history for faster cars that can race better?

Pick the two options you consider most important for F1, and preferably explain your opinion.
My Opinion (click to show)
PICK 10 COMPETITION (6 wins, 18 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

Asphalt_World
Posts: 4969
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Asphalt_World »

Fastest cars in the world is subjective because lots of cars accelerate to 60 quicker than F1 cars do, but won't lap as fast. Some have higher top speeds too.

I'd also vote for open wheels, but open cockpits are not as important to me.

Therefore I could only vote for close racing.
Instagram @simply_italian_cars

Jenson's Understeer
Posts: 3560
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:47 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Jenson's Understeer »

Well, I don't consider 'fastest cars in the world' to be all that important. If WEC cars were ten seconds a lap quicker it would have no bearing on my feelings towards F1. Similarly if FE cars got to the point where they could lap Monaco or Mexico faster then it wouldn't bother me. So I'm kind of left with the other two by default. Ironic because open cockpit isn't something I feel that strongly about (although in an ideal world the drivers would be as protected as they could be whilst still maintaining an open cockpit, which is almost an impossible ask I know).
Pick 10 | 1st x3, 2nd x3, 3rd x8
2020: 9th | 2019: 11th | 2018: 5th | 2017: 6th | 2016: 8th | 2015: 2nd | 2014: 15th | 2013: 17th | 2012: 11th

User avatar
Exediron
Posts: 8140
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Exediron »

Well, I sort of assumed everyone would want all three in an ideal world, but there's nothing to stop you from picking only one! The data should still be good in the end.
PICK 10 COMPETITION (6 wins, 18 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

User avatar
minchy
Posts: 5304
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by minchy »

It's a strange question, because it depends how you define fastest. They're really not the fastest cars in terms of out right top speed by a long shot, but they are the fasted round almost any track that isn't an oval (although, I'd love to see the lap time at Le Mans compared to an LMP1 class).

For me personally, the ability to race closely is a none issue. If you want to see close racing, you really need to watch a spec series where the cars are specifically designed for that purpose such as formula e, indycar or the lower spec FOM series like GP2 or similar. They may try to write the regs to allow close racing in F1, but as long as teams have the ability to design their own cars, that will never be a consideration they design around. Put simply, if you design your car to be able to race closely, you design your car to be slower than your competitors - you simply can't have the fastest cars around a circuit at the same time as having cars that can race closely, even with aero designs taking advantage of things like ground effect that aren't as dependant on clean air in front. I honestly think that any fans who demand f1 to have close racing just don't understand f1! Sorry if that's you (unspecified) I'm talking about, but I don't see any way f1 can ever have close racing whilst allowing the teams to design their own cars. And if/when it does ever have regs so restrictive that it almost becomes a spec series, that's the same time that it stops being f1 as we have known it for almost 70 years!
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

breathemyexhaust
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:08 am

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by breathemyexhaust »

It's funny: I would say that it is integral to the identity of F1 that it should feature the fastest road course vehicles in the world. There isn't really anything subjective about that. If another series were to have faster cars, it would basically invalidate F1.

User avatar
Jezza13
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Location: Far side of Koozebane

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Jezza13 »

Open wheel & close racing.

I'd gladly like to see the cars going 7 sec a lap slower if that gave us better racing.
Only took 7 yrs, 5 mths & 21 days.

Cooper, Arrows, Brabham, Ligier, Lotus, Tyrrell, Minardi, McLaren, Sauber, Williams,

Remember the garagista's. The heart & soul of F1. They raced to race.

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)

Siao7
Posts: 8637
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Siao7 »

Jezza13 wrote:Open wheel & close racing.

I'd gladly like to see the cars going 7 sec a lap slower if that gave us better racing.
But that's go-carts... I mean there are other series that do that. They also need to be fast in my opinion, the fastest open wheeled series that has cutting edge technology. I'd actually add that if there was an option.

User avatar
Black_Flag_11
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Black_Flag_11 »

Fastest cars and close racing for me.

Would be nice in a sense to keep open cockpit and open wheels just because that's the way its largely been since inception, but I consider that to be mostly superficial personally and I wouldn't really be bothered if it changed.

User avatar
DOLOMITE
Posts: 1556
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by DOLOMITE »

Interesting way to look at it, because the the open wheel and fastest car things are important, but they count for fairy cakes if the cars can't actually race.
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss

User avatar
Lt. Drebin
Posts: 4796
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Lt. Drebin »

The greatest battle ever in F1, at Dijon 1979 was open wheel and close racing. Yet it was much slower than cars these days. And we still call it the greatest battle ever.
The end is near

Todd
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:26 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Todd »

Cars with enclosed wheels always provide closer racing. There should be a poll with two choices. Do you want open wheels, or do you want close racing? Wanting both is like believing that outcomes should be disconnected from merit and effort.
Does anyone think that there has ever been a moment of frustration with his father when Max has pointed out to Jos that he was the Pierre Gasly of 1994?

breathemyexhaust
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:08 am

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by breathemyexhaust »

Lt. Drebin wrote:The greatest battle ever in F1, at Dijon 1979 was open wheel and close racing. Yet it was much slower than cars these days. And we still call it the greatest battle ever.
This doesn't make sense. Those cars are slow RELATIVE to those of the future, but they weren't slow in their contemporary context. I'm saying that F1 should feature the fastest road course cars of THEIR time, and presumably by dint of that, the fastest cars up to that point in history. Take away F1's speed and what does it actually have to call it's own? Plenty of racing occurs in other series; Indycar features open-wheel vehicles.

Asphalt_World
Posts: 4969
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Asphalt_World »

Slower lap times, within reason, is hardly a problem that some make it out to be. Unless, that is, you dislike wet races when the cars are way off pace and lacking in grip!

OK, I'm not after lap times that are 10-20 seconds slower, but when drivers complain about lack of grip because they're a couple of seconds off ultimate pace, I tend to start enjoying the racing a bit more because it normally means mistakes are made and drivers are having to put some steering input in.
Instagram @simply_italian_cars

WHoff78
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by WHoff78 »

No option for sustainability and fuel /energy efficiency, haha. Seems liberty are on a slightly different page. All jokes aside they already need to define the regs to limit speeds anyway and the efficiency of the engines is one of a number of good options to do that, along with anything that would promote closer racing in my opinion.

User avatar
Remmirath
Posts: 848
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:45 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Remmirath »

Of these options I'd pick the second two, but I'd probably ultimately replace "the fastest cars in the world" with "the fastest, most technologically advanced cars in the world that are capable of being raced by humans", and if I had to chose between close racing and keeping the constructor's championship/formula aspect (I.E., not becoming a spec series), I'd pick the latter.

What is clear is that the first option isn't at all important to me. Heck, there even already was a non-open wheel car in F1 way back when, and I just don't care if the cockpit is open or not. Seeing people is not important to me. I would want them to stay single-seaters, though, for sure.

To answer the question the other way, racing and speed are more important to me, and the only part of the history I'm not willing to set aside in the name of better racing and more speed is the cars being built by the manufacturers to regulations.
Image
Qualifying Prediction Game 2019 Champion [8 wins]
Pick 10: 2016: 22nd | 2017: 21st | 2018: 3rd | 2019: 20th
Top Three: 2016: 9th [6th] | 2017: 16th [6th] | 2018: 4th [4th] | 2019: 3rd [1st]

User avatar
Blinky McSquinty
Posts: 1457
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Blinky McSquinty »

"Able to race closely" is the only item I agreed with.

Believing a car is fast is more ego than reality because the regulations place a ceiling on performance. That is why we see other series steadily closing the gap on lap times. They are steadily improving and getting faster, while Formula One is mired at a specific level of performance.

Open cockpit, open wheel, both are inherently dangerous. Additionally, the cars are just plain VERY fugly. Any change in their appearance would be an improvement. They are aesthetically a nightmare.
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.

sandman1347
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by sandman1347 »

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Fastest cars and close racing for me.

Would be nice in a sense to keep open cockpit and open wheels just because that's the way its largely been since inception, but I consider that to be mostly superficial personally and I wouldn't really be bothered if it changed.
This. By fastest cars, I specifically mean fastest lap times around road courses. That is a must to consider the series as the pinnacle. The open wheel/cockpit designs are not essential IMO.

sandman1347
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by sandman1347 »

Blinky McSquinty wrote:"Able to race closely" is the only item I agreed with.

Believing a car is fast is more ego than reality because the regulations place a ceiling on performance. That is why we see other series steadily closing the gap on lap times. They are steadily improving and getting faster, while Formula One is mired at a specific level of performance.

Open cockpit, open wheel, both are inherently dangerous. Additionally, the cars are just plain VERY fugly. Any change in their appearance would be an improvement. They are aesthetically a nightmare.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. Since the 2017 rules changes; the gaps between F1 and all other series have just widened. Even Indycars are now as much as 12-13 seconds slower at some tracks. Most other series have gone to more standardization of parts and other cost controls while F1 has just gotten crazier and crazier.

User avatar
Blinky McSquinty
Posts: 1457
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Blinky McSquinty »

sandman1347 wrote:I'm not sure where you get that idea. Since the 2017 rules changes; the gaps between F1 and all other series have just widened. Even Indycars are now as much as 12-13 seconds slower at some tracks. Most other series have gone to more standardization of parts and other cost controls while F1 has just gotten crazier and crazier.
I was referring to such series like F2 and f3 where there is more of a direct comparison.

For series like Indycar, they run at their chosen level of performance for budget and reliability reasons. They actually want to attract new teams and have a stable financial model for all teams.

But as far as performance, current LMP1 cars make Formula One cars look pathetic in acceleration.
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.

User avatar
Exediron
Posts: 8140
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Exediron »

Blinky McSquinty wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:I'm not sure where you get that idea. Since the 2017 rules changes; the gaps between F1 and all other series have just widened. Even Indycars are now as much as 12-13 seconds slower at some tracks. Most other series have gone to more standardization of parts and other cost controls while F1 has just gotten crazier and crazier.
I was referring to such series like F2 and f3 where there is more of a direct comparison.

For series like Indycar, they run at their chosen level of performance for budget and reliability reasons. They actually want to attract new teams and have a stable financial model for all teams.

But as far as performance, current LMP1 cars make Formula One cars look pathetic in acceleration.
And in acceleration only. At the circuits they share, F1 cars are still substantially quicker around a lap.
PICK 10 COMPETITION (6 wins, 18 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

sandman1347
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by sandman1347 »

Blinky McSquinty wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:I'm not sure where you get that idea. Since the 2017 rules changes; the gaps between F1 and all other series have just widened. Even Indycars are now as much as 12-13 seconds slower at some tracks. Most other series have gone to more standardization of parts and other cost controls while F1 has just gotten crazier and crazier.
I was referring to such series like F2 and f3 where there is more of a direct comparison.

For series like Indycar, they run at their chosen level of performance for budget and reliability reasons. They actually want to attract new teams and have a stable financial model for all teams.

But as far as performance, current LMP1 cars make Formula One cars look pathetic in acceleration.
But not lap time. The straight line acceleration advantage is mostly down to AWD. LMP1 is going the way of the dinosaur anyway unfortunately.

User avatar
Covalent
Posts: 10155
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Covalent »

As long as F1 attracts the biggest teams and best drivers none of the above really matters.

Siao7
Posts: 8637
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Siao7 »

sandman1347 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:"Able to race closely" is the only item I agreed with.

Believing a car is fast is more ego than reality because the regulations place a ceiling on performance. That is why we see other series steadily closing the gap on lap times. They are steadily improving and getting faster, while Formula One is mired at a specific level of performance.

Open cockpit, open wheel, both are inherently dangerous. Additionally, the cars are just plain VERY fugly. Any change in their appearance would be an improvement. They are aesthetically a nightmare.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. Since the 2017 rules changes; the gaps between F1 and all other series have just widened. Even Indycars are now as much as 12-13 seconds slower at some tracks. Most other series have gone to more standardization of parts and other cost controls while F1 has just gotten crazier and crazier.
Where do you get this sandman? I'm trying to think if there are any tracks we can directly compare F1 with other series

User avatar
Exediron
Posts: 8140
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Exediron »

Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:"Able to race closely" is the only item I agreed with.

Believing a car is fast is more ego than reality because the regulations place a ceiling on performance. That is why we see other series steadily closing the gap on lap times. They are steadily improving and getting faster, while Formula One is mired at a specific level of performance.

Open cockpit, open wheel, both are inherently dangerous. Additionally, the cars are just plain VERY fugly. Any change in their appearance would be an improvement. They are aesthetically a nightmare.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. Since the 2017 rules changes; the gaps between F1 and all other series have just widened. Even Indycars are now as much as 12-13 seconds slower at some tracks. Most other series have gone to more standardization of parts and other cost controls while F1 has just gotten crazier and crazier.
Where do you get this sandman? I'm trying to think if there are any tracks we can directly compare F1 with other series
COTA is the only one for IndyCar. For WEC, Spa or Silverstone are the obvious ones. A direct comparison to Super Formula is impossible, as far as I'm aware.
PICK 10 COMPETITION (6 wins, 18 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

User avatar
Black_Flag_11
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Black_Flag_11 »

Exediron wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:"Able to race closely" is the only item I agreed with.

Believing a car is fast is more ego than reality because the regulations place a ceiling on performance. That is why we see other series steadily closing the gap on lap times. They are steadily improving and getting faster, while Formula One is mired at a specific level of performance.

Open cockpit, open wheel, both are inherently dangerous. Additionally, the cars are just plain VERY fugly. Any change in their appearance would be an improvement. They are aesthetically a nightmare.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. Since the 2017 rules changes; the gaps between F1 and all other series have just widened. Even Indycars are now as much as 12-13 seconds slower at some tracks. Most other series have gone to more standardization of parts and other cost controls while F1 has just gotten crazier and crazier.
Where do you get this sandman? I'm trying to think if there are any tracks we can directly compare F1 with other series
COTA is the only one for IndyCar. For WEC, Spa or Silverstone are the obvious ones. A direct comparison to Super Formula is impossible, as far as I'm aware.
They do race at Suzuka it appears, unless they use a different layout you're aware of?

2019 Suzuka Super Formula pole time - 1:36.060
2018 Suzuka F1 pole time - 1:27.760

Siao7
Posts: 8637
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Siao7 »

Exediron wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:"Able to race closely" is the only item I agreed with.

Believing a car is fast is more ego than reality because the regulations place a ceiling on performance. That is why we see other series steadily closing the gap on lap times. They are steadily improving and getting faster, while Formula One is mired at a specific level of performance.

Open cockpit, open wheel, both are inherently dangerous. Additionally, the cars are just plain VERY fugly. Any change in their appearance would be an improvement. They are aesthetically a nightmare.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. Since the 2017 rules changes; the gaps between F1 and all other series have just widened. Even Indycars are now as much as 12-13 seconds slower at some tracks. Most other series have gone to more standardization of parts and other cost controls while F1 has just gotten crazier and crazier.
Where do you get this sandman? I'm trying to think if there are any tracks we can directly compare F1 with other series
COTA is the only one for IndyCar. For WEC, Spa or Silverstone are the obvious ones. A direct comparison to Super Formula is impossible, as far as I'm aware.
Ah, thanks, I forgot about COTA.

User avatar
Jezza13
Posts: 2397
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Location: Far side of Koozebane

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Jezza13 »

Siao7 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:"Able to race closely" is the only item I agreed with.

Believing a car is fast is more ego than reality because the regulations place a ceiling on performance. That is why we see other series steadily closing the gap on lap times. They are steadily improving and getting faster, while Formula One is mired at a specific level of performance.

Open cockpit, open wheel, both are inherently dangerous. Additionally, the cars are just plain VERY fugly. Any change in their appearance would be an improvement. They are aesthetically a nightmare.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. Since the 2017 rules changes; the gaps between F1 and all other series have just widened. Even Indycars are now as much as 12-13 seconds slower at some tracks. Most other series have gone to more standardization of parts and other cost controls while F1 has just gotten crazier and crazier.
Where do you get this sandman? I'm trying to think if there are any tracks we can directly compare F1 with other series
COTA is the only one for IndyCar. For WEC, Spa or Silverstone are the obvious ones. A direct comparison to Super Formula is impossible, as far as I'm aware.
Ah, thanks, I forgot about COTA.
Bit of an Indycar vs F1 comparison at COTA.

F1 car about 15 sec / lap quicker apparently but jeez, looking at that footage, the Indycar driver has to do about 10 times the work to get around the track than Hamilton

Only took 7 yrs, 5 mths & 21 days.

Cooper, Arrows, Brabham, Ligier, Lotus, Tyrrell, Minardi, McLaren, Sauber, Williams,

Remember the garagista's. The heart & soul of F1. They raced to race.

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)

User avatar
F1 MERCENARY
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Location: Miami, Florida

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by F1 MERCENARY »

sandman1347 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:"Able to race closely" is the only item I agreed with.

Believing a car is fast is more ego than reality because the regulations place a ceiling on performance. That is why we see other series steadily closing the gap on lap times. They are steadily improving and getting faster, while Formula One is mired at a specific level of performance.

Open cockpit, open wheel, both are inherently dangerous. Additionally, the cars are just plain VERY fugly. Any change in their appearance would be an improvement. They are aesthetically a nightmare.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. Since the 2017 rules changes; the gaps between F1 and all other series have just widened. Even Indycars are now as much as 12-13 seconds slower at some tracks. Most other series have gone to more standardization of parts and other cost controls while F1 has just gotten crazier and crazier.
Agreed, and I don't think the current F1 cars are particularly unattractive outside the tips of the nose. Although Mercedes built some of the ugliest cars of all time with the hideous step nose, but since 2014 every Mercedes has been beautiful up until this season with the odd nose. Indy cars are visual nightmares with their clunky and clumsy nothing up front and massive bulk in the rear design, from front to back, top to bottom. The Formula E cars look nice and are aesthetically pleasing to the eye because a great deal of effort went into making the cars more attractive as well as functional and it shows. LMP1 cars of the day aren't necessarily ugly, but they're not particularly beautiful thanks to the development of the blunt, squared off noses, but overall they're cool hunks of complex technology.

And while the regs continue to stifle absolute maximum speed, Not even the Hyper cars will be able to match F1 cars with all their ground effects and absurd power on a proper track so the closest thing to F1 are still the LMP1 Prototypes and they still cannot match F1 cars with ALL their systems which are far more vast than in F1.
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA

User avatar
F1 MERCENARY
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Location: Miami, Florida

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by F1 MERCENARY »

Blinky McSquinty wrote:But as far as performance, current LMP1 cars make Formula One cars look pathetic in acceleration.
Thanks to systems they feature that are no longer allowed in F1. If F1 cars had Traction Control the but whoopin' would be even greater.
If LC and TC were allowed F1 cars would lap even quicker, raise the RPM limit to a more appropriate 16K-18Krpm and fuhgeddaboudit.

They're simply different beasts from one another in their entirety.
The reality is that LMP1 cars accelerate faster only in the low to mid range, but once past a certain point the F1 car far out accelerates an LMP1 car and keeps going.
Regardless, neither is allowed to run at maximum performance so in that regard it sucks for both series.
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA

sandman1347
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by sandman1347 »

Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:"Able to race closely" is the only item I agreed with.

Believing a car is fast is more ego than reality because the regulations place a ceiling on performance. That is why we see other series steadily closing the gap on lap times. They are steadily improving and getting faster, while Formula One is mired at a specific level of performance.

Open cockpit, open wheel, both are inherently dangerous. Additionally, the cars are just plain VERY fugly. Any change in their appearance would be an improvement. They are aesthetically a nightmare.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. Since the 2017 rules changes; the gaps between F1 and all other series have just widened. Even Indycars are now as much as 12-13 seconds slower at some tracks. Most other series have gone to more standardization of parts and other cost controls while F1 has just gotten crazier and crazier.
Where do you get this sandman? I'm trying to think if there are any tracks we can directly compare F1 with other series
COTA is the only one for IndyCar. For WEC, Spa or Silverstone are the obvious ones. A direct comparison to Super Formula is impossible, as far as I'm aware.
They do race at Suzuka it appears, unless they use a different layout you're aware of?

2019 Suzuka Super Formula pole time - 1:36.060
2018 Suzuka F1 pole time - 1:27.760
Super Formula has a lot of downforce. It's probably the next fastest open wheel series at a lot of tracks behind only F1. The cars are artificially down on power though because of new regs that force the teams to make an engine last the whole season. Formula 2 is in a similar ballpark. The engine performance is turned up a bit so F2 cars have more power but they are slightly less advanced aerodynamically. Indycars have more power still but significantly less downforce.

User avatar
Blinky McSquinty
Posts: 1457
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Blinky McSquinty »

Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:"Able to race closely" is the only item I agreed with.

Believing a car is fast is more ego than reality because the regulations place a ceiling on performance. That is why we see other series steadily closing the gap on lap times. They are steadily improving and getting faster, while Formula One is mired at a specific level of performance.

Open cockpit, open wheel, both are inherently dangerous. Additionally, the cars are just plain VERY fugly. Any change in their appearance would be an improvement. They are aesthetically a nightmare.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. Since the 2017 rules changes; the gaps between F1 and all other series have just widened. Even Indycars are now as much as 12-13 seconds slower at some tracks. Most other series have gone to more standardization of parts and other cost controls while F1 has just gotten crazier and crazier.
Where do you get this sandman? I'm trying to think if there are any tracks we can directly compare F1 with other series
Silverstone, Shanghai, Spa, Sao Paulo, Bahrain
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.

Siao7
Posts: 8637
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Siao7 »

Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:"Able to race closely" is the only item I agreed with.

Believing a car is fast is more ego than reality because the regulations place a ceiling on performance. That is why we see other series steadily closing the gap on lap times. They are steadily improving and getting faster, while Formula One is mired at a specific level of performance.

Open cockpit, open wheel, both are inherently dangerous. Additionally, the cars are just plain VERY fugly. Any change in their appearance would be an improvement. They are aesthetically a nightmare.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. Since the 2017 rules changes; the gaps between F1 and all other series have just widened. Even Indycars are now as much as 12-13 seconds slower at some tracks. Most other series have gone to more standardization of parts and other cost controls while F1 has just gotten crazier and crazier.
Where do you get this sandman? I'm trying to think if there are any tracks we can directly compare F1 with other series
Silverstone, Shanghai, Spa, Sao Paulo, Bahrain
Thanks, I also think Suzuka hosts different series, doesn't it?

Fiki
Posts: 8044
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Belgium

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Fiki »

I wish I could find where the open wheel philosophy came from as a requirement for the formula.

The only reason why F1, with its open wheels laps faster than a comparable car, is because of its massive wings. These not only increase the car's already huge drag - since producing lift, or downforce in this case, always carries the price of drag -, but lift also means increased turbulence. This means that open wheels and downforce wings means F1 cars can't normally be the fastest cars, all else being equal. And that following closely in their current form is very difficult indeed.

I voted open wheel and able to follow closely, which perforce means I don't believe they need to be the fastest cars. Which also means I don't believe it was anything other than a PR-exercise to enlarge the wings for these last 2 seasons. It was and remains simply pandering to easily bamboozled fans.
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

User avatar
F1 MERCENARY
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Location: Miami, Florida

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by F1 MERCENARY »

The reason F1 cars go faster than anything else isn't because of their massive wings. It''s because of their superior aero across the board coupled with power to weight ratio and phenomenal engineering.

That said, Porsche proved with its 919 that LMP1 cars can lap just as fast, if not faster than the current F1 cars, and set the lap record at Spa, though that's not really worthy of braggin' rights over F1 cars, as F1 cars are also heavily stifled in terms of what they can do by just as much, if not to a greater degree, and unleashing an F1 car to its full potential would certainly lead to the driver blacking out as it would obliterate any record held by any car on the same track.

In the 90's C.A.R.T. Cars were not too far off F1 in overall performance and speed, though due to the nature of the series, they didn't accelerate as quickly as F1 cars and were a tad heavier, but over a distance go faster than F1 cars which were running V10's and 12's at the time. I always wondered how one of those CART cars would have done if fitted with a V10.
I bet quite impressive.
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA

Fiki
Posts: 8044
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Belgium

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Fiki »

F1 MERCENARY wrote:The reason F1 cars go faster than anything else isn't because of their massive wings. It''s because of their superior aero across the board coupled with power to weight ratio and phenomenal engineering.
Just a second; either you didn't understand what I wrote, or you are simply mistaken. F1 isn't fastest, it laps tracks fastest. That means it takes corners faster than other cars, and it does that because of its wings. "Superior aero across the board" is impossible, simply because of the open wheel formula. Superior power to weight ratio is important, but that takes it away from "all else being equal". Remember the streamline Mercedes cars in Fangio's day? That's because superior aero without "downforce" simply means "streamlining" (lowest possible drag not due to the production of lift/downforce). Which is the reason for:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:Porsche proved with its 919 that LMP1 cars can lap just as fast, if not faster than the current F1 cars, and set the lap record at Spa, though that's not really worthy of braggin' rights over F1 cars, as F1 cars are also heavily stifled in terms of what they can do by just as much, if not to a greater degree
The Honda car that was taken to the salt flats for a maximum speed run illustrates this; just as the F1 configuration on the proper Hockenheim-Ring used to do. Hardly any wing at all, which compromised the car performance in the stadium section, but out and out low-drag speed on the straights.
F1 MERCENARY wrote:unleashing an F1 car to its full potential would certainly lead to the driver blacking out as it would obliterate any record held by any car on the same track.
That would be true for any car with high downforce and the power needed to overcome the drag all this downforce creates. That's because you don't need downforce on the straights, only for superior cornering.
Whether blacking out would actually occur is something I don't know. The difference between a car and a fighter/aerobatic/racing aircraft is that the g-forces take the blood down from the head due to the bank angle of an aircraft. In a car, the blood goes left or right in the corners, and that might make a difference between left and right eye. So perhaps perception of depth might be affected, rather than blacking out.
F1 MERCENARY wrote:In the 90's C.A.R.T. Cars were not too far off F1 in overall performance and speed, though due to the nature of the series, they didn't accelerate as quickly as F1 cars and were a tad heavier, but over a distance go faster than F1 cars which were running V10's and 12's at the time. I always wondered how one of those CART cars would have done if fitted with a V10.
I bet quite impressive.
Well if the weight and tyres would have become equal with those engines fitted, and acceleration would be similar (deceleration might have remained different if they were still fitted with steel brake disks), then the remaining difference would have been in the downforce, and therefore the wings. Provided that is, if you would have taken the underbody wing shape out of the equation (usually mistakenly called "ground effect"). I believe that was the case in the '80s, but I'm not sure for the '90s. The reason is simple; underbody wing shapes produces less drag for the same amount of downforce.

Superior cornering time means downforce. And downforce means drag. Which you have overcome with superior engine power.
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

sandman1347
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by sandman1347 »

F1 MERCENARY wrote:The reason F1 cars go faster than anything else isn't because of their massive wings. It''s because of their superior aero across the board coupled with power to weight ratio and phenomenal engineering.

That said, Porsche proved with its 919 that LMP1 cars can lap just as fast, if not faster than the current F1 cars, and set the lap record at Spa, though that's not really worthy of braggin' rights over F1 cars, as F1 cars are also heavily stifled in terms of what they can do by just as much, if not to a greater degree, and unleashing an F1 car to its full potential would certainly lead to the driver blacking out as it would obliterate any record held by any car on the same track.

In the 90's C.A.R.T. Cars were not too far off F1 in overall performance and speed, though due to the nature of the series, they didn't accelerate as quickly as F1 cars and were a tad heavier, but over a distance go faster than F1 cars which were running V10's and 12's at the time. I always wondered how one of those CART cars would have done if fitted with a V10.
I bet quite impressive.
No that's simply not correct. The 919 EVO was not an LMP1 car. It was a modified LMP1 that did NOT comply with the regulations. If you removed the fuel flow restriction from F1 cars as well as battery deployment restrictions and other regs, you could smash the EVO's "record". Hell, you won't even need to remove the restrictions and they will break that record this year if it's dry.

User avatar
F1 MERCENARY
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Location: Miami, Florida

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by F1 MERCENARY »

Uh That's exactly what I said. You're taking one line of what I said totally out of context. The rest of that sentence says it clearly.
Sometimes you guys remind me of my wofe and mother in law… they hear what I say only to a certain point and the rest of what I said is somehow never muttered according to them. Thank goodness for my kids! :lol:
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA

User avatar
F1 MERCENARY
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Location: Miami, Florida

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by F1 MERCENARY »

Fiki wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:The reason F1 cars go faster than anything else isn't because of their massive wings. It''s because of their superior aero across the board coupled with power to weight ratio and phenomenal engineering.
Just a second; either you didn't understand what I wrote, or you are simply mistaken. F1 isn't fastest, it laps tracks fastest. That means it takes corners faster than other cars, and it does that because of its wings. "Superior aero across the board" is impossible, simply because of the open wheel formula. Superior power to weight ratio is important, but that takes it away from "all else being equal". Remember the streamline Mercedes cars in Fangio's day? That's because superior aero without "downforce" simply means "streamlining" (lowest possible drag not due to the production of lift/downforce). Which is the reason for:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:Porsche proved with its 919 that LMP1 cars can lap just as fast, if not faster than the current F1 cars, and set the lap record at Spa, though that's not really worthy of braggin' rights over F1 cars, as F1 cars are also heavily stifled in terms of what they can do by just as much, if not to a greater degree
The Honda car that was taken to the salt flats for a maximum speed run illustrates this; just as the F1 configuration on the proper Hockenheim-Ring used to do. Hardly any wing at all, which compromised the car performance in the stadium section, but out and out low-drag speed on the straights.
F1 MERCENARY wrote:unleashing an F1 car to its full potential would certainly lead to the driver blacking out as it would obliterate any record held by any car on the same track.
That would be true for any car with high downforce and the power needed to overcome the drag all this downforce creates. That's because you don't need downforce on the straights, only for superior cornering.
Whether blacking out would actually occur is something I don't know. The difference between a car and a fighter/aerobatic/racing aircraft is that the g-forces take the blood down from the head due to the bank angle of an aircraft. In a car, the blood goes left or right in the corners, and that might make a difference between left and right eye. So perhaps perception of depth might be affected, rather than blacking out.
F1 MERCENARY wrote:In the 90's C.A.R.T. Cars were not too far off F1 in overall performance and speed, though due to the nature of the series, they didn't accelerate as quickly as F1 cars and were a tad heavier, but over a distance go faster than F1 cars which were running V10's and 12's at the time. I always wondered how one of those CART cars would have done if fitted with a V10.
I bet quite impressive.
Well if the weight and tyres would have become equal with those engines fitted, and acceleration would be similar (deceleration might have remained different if they were still fitted with steel brake disks), then the remaining difference would have been in the downforce, and therefore the wings. Provided that is, if you would have taken the underbody wing shape out of the equation (usually mistakenly called "ground effect"). I believe that was the case in the '80s, but I'm not sure for the '90s. The reason is simple; underbody wing shapes produces less drag for the same amount of downforce.

Superior cornering time means downforce. And downforce means drag. Which you have overcome with superior engine power.
OK So they're not the fastest but indeed lap the fastest of any race course racing car on the planet. That says that F1 cars are indeed the fastest… Next! LOL


I followed American open wheel racing religiously right up until ChampCar made it a spec series and then I quit following it altogether once the IRL took over and ruined it across the board,
And the first time ChampCar arrived at the Texas Motor Speedway, the drivers were complaining about being light headed. They were exceeding 230MPH and approaching the 240MPH mark (the CORRECT unit for measuring speed)
and it proved to be too much for the human body.

NOTE: This is NOT an aircraft: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

If an F1 car was fitted with ground effects and allowed to run the absolute best Aero and the engines tuned for maximum speed/power, I'm fairly certain drivers would either pass out or do like the ChampCar guys did in Texas and let off the throttle and let their teams know they were feeling light headed and in the early stages of blacking out. When that's about to happen you feel very odd and sick and you try and keep from blacking out.

As well, CART and ChampCar cars did indeed feature ground effects and were not a wingshaped anything, but rather, the floor featured DEEP channels that ran from front to back that sucked the cars down far beyond what F1 cars experienced in during their ground effects era. As well, their brakes were indeed NOT steel as you suggest. The teams ran Carbon systems made by EBC and 2 other brands I can't remember the names of currently.
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA

Siao7
Posts: 8637
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: The Tripod of F1

Post by Siao7 »

sandman1347 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:The reason F1 cars go faster than anything else isn't because of their massive wings. It''s because of their superior aero across the board coupled with power to weight ratio and phenomenal engineering.

That said, Porsche proved with its 919 that LMP1 cars can lap just as fast, if not faster than the current F1 cars, and set the lap record at Spa, though that's not really worthy of braggin' rights over F1 cars, as F1 cars are also heavily stifled in terms of what they can do by just as much, if not to a greater degree, and unleashing an F1 car to its full potential would certainly lead to the driver blacking out as it would obliterate any record held by any car on the same track.

In the 90's C.A.R.T. Cars were not too far off F1 in overall performance and speed, though due to the nature of the series, they didn't accelerate as quickly as F1 cars and were a tad heavier, but over a distance go faster than F1 cars which were running V10's and 12's at the time. I always wondered how one of those CART cars would have done if fitted with a V10.
I bet quite impressive.
No that's simply not correct. The 919 EVO was not an LMP1 car. It was a modified LMP1 that did NOT comply with the regulations. If you removed the fuel flow restriction from F1 cars as well as battery deployment restrictions and other regs, you could smash the EVO's "record". Hell, you won't even need to remove the restrictions and they will break that record this year if it's dry.
The last time an F1 raced on the old Ring was in... 1976. Today I believe they'd be much closer to the 5min mark, if not under it.

Also F1 cars got the record back for Spa in the quali last year, didn't they? And rain prevented them to run at Q3, further improving on that lap. Having said that, the track improves as more cars lay rubber on a track, a luxury that the LMP1 car I believe didn't have. That said, it was the sole purpose for that run to show what could happen if they relax the rules, in a heavily modified car that even featured DRS. One can only imagine what an F1 car without fuel restrictions, a quali engine map, an exhaust blown DDD and ground effects... I trust Lewis would annihilate that lap record.

Oh how I wish Newey would take the bait!

Post Reply