Is Formula One *Too* Fast?

[Dan Fielden]

Ive only seen the very first question and not read a thing and IMHO Formula 1 is not too fast. If a driver crashes because he cannot handle the speed then he is not worthy of an f1 seat. An example of this is Gaston Mazzacane who said he would not change into 7th gear because it was too "PAINFULL" on his neck.

[Kicking-back]

It's not about the drivers not handling the speed.

It's about what is considered an acceptable cornering speed.

The best driver in the world can be a passenger if something goes wrong - and the regulators want to ensure he's not killed for it.

[avsfan733]

Originally posted by Glen
The maximum potential corner speed with TC and without is precisely the same. TC encourages the drivers to go closer to the limit more of the time, but it doesn't give higher corner speeds per se.

Semi-true TC doesn't improve corner speed at all...but it doesn't allow the driver closer to the limit either...all TC does is keep the thing in a straightline after the turn when he put s his foot down and says go. TC is not stability control it is not cornering control if schu went into the lowes hairpin at 250mph TC wouldn't slow the car down and get it round the bend

[Giando]

Adding my personal opinion…

Lap times on comparable circuits are pretty near to the limit, so Fia has to slow down the cars.
But, I believe it’s not a matter of horsepower, electronics and aerodinamycs (not at all, anyway).

First, to decrease performance, the main thing is to reduce tyres grip, and this could be done allowing only one tyre change during the race (apart puncture cases, where they could eventually substitute just that particular tyre and not four); we’ll see tyres which has to endure some more km (or miles!) and three or four seconds down in the performance. Straight lines speed has never been a real problem, while fast cornering it is! If you go 380km/h on a straight, very few mechanical parts are stressed (see LeMans 24h, since years), while in the corners, the forces acting on the cars do really stress components like suspensions and wings, for example…and a good tyre gives you the possibilty to go incredibly fast in corners!

Then they should ban the refueling pit-stop: we’ll return back to see cars that modify their behaviour on track during the races, from the start (very heavy) to the end (very light) and so the ability of the driver to interpret and handle this changes and the ability to set the car in different ways for the qualifying and for the race. And we’ll return to see overtaking, differences between cars of the same team, surprises in the middle of the race, etc… (for example remember Hungary 89, with Mansell starting from the 12th row because he and T.D. John Barnard concentrated more on the race set-up during the saturday qualifying session, and he won that race, on a circuit worldwide recognized as a place where’s very difficult to overtake…) Probably we’ll see a more spectacular F1, and more selection between the drivers. Nigel recently express his surprise on how easy was to drive a modern F1 (a Jordan – I guess how easy may be a Ferrari!), compared with his old Williams… he’s probably right! And if the minimum weight is measured with a full fuel-tank, this could reduce the ballast exageration… you see?

For the aerodinamycs… I think the more they put limits on it, the more every little surface gets importance. Explain: when FIA said, for example, that the front-wing must have a maximum front-section of 20cm. the engineers (correctly) explored new ways to get the same downforce as previous wings, so they introduced the very complex shapes we see since years, wih the result that those elements give the maximum performance when the airflow is free and linear, but when they are into a disturbed airflow (behind another car) they cannot produce the same downforce; see back the cars in – say – 1990: their wings were absolutely simple and squared/linear: the effect on them of an airflow coming from a car in front of them was less “damaging” than the one we see today… So if FIA reduces for the next year – say - the surface area ahead the rear tyres, the engineers will produce a high effort (and the related costs!) to find solutions that may assure the same level of performance in that area…and they are usually able to reach it (Hope I’ve been clear with the language here).

Long-life tyres and pit-stops banning should be the road.

But they won’t do this. Right?

Anyone who agree/disagree?

Confrontation is welcome!

[Glen]

Originally posted by avsfan733
TC is not stability control it is not cornering control if schu went into the lowes hairpin at 250mph TC wouldn't slow the car down and get it round the bend

I never said was stability control, or that it helped them around the bends.

TC is a device that enables the car more easily to be closer to the limit because the second half of the corner can be attacked harder. Acceleration does not start on the straight, but from deep within the corner. Corner exit speeds are effectively increased by TC because of the ability to attack that element of the corner more reliably, with less risk.

[SKT]

F1 is not too fast.

If F1 is too fast for those in the sport then they should consider something else other than driving F1 cars.

We're talking about the pinnacle of motorsport - if a driver can't handle it, then leave.

Everyone is aware that there is lots of money riding in F1 - to keep the whole thing afloat. And for the teams that invest huge $'s to ensure that they find themselves in the winners circle - they will ensure that their cars are faster than their competitors - that of course forces others to follow suit.

Again this is F1 - and if drivers begin to feel uncomfortable, find a new occupation.

F1 is all about speed - it is about single purpose machines built for (surprise) speed.

[Kicking-back]

It's not about "drivers not being able to handle it".

It's about managing acceptable risk.

There is a point where that line is crossed.

[SKT]

Kicking-back,

That's what the brake pedal is there for, and it is about "driver's not being able to handle it" because they make the choices about managing acceptable risk - that's what they are paid to do, and some are able to manage acceptable risk better than others, and that is the point where the line is crossed.

[Kicking-back]

Drivers will always drive the cars as fast as they can, but there is a point when cornering speeds can get too fast for impacts not to result in injury.

[SKT]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
Drivers will always drive the cars as fast as they can, but there is a point when cornering speeds can get too fast for impacts not to result in injury.

F1 already has speeds, that when corning could result in injury.

The business of F1 on the track is about speed at the end of the day, and yes injurious impacts can and will happen - it is the nature of motorsport.

Back in the turbo era where one had 1300 hp qualifying engines with fully skirted aerodynamics - drivers managed. And sure, when something happened, it led to serious injury. However, when rules came in to ban skirted cars it wasn't because of the speed but rather because of the lack of knowledge to manage that speed.

Modern F1 cars today, even with less horsepower and grooved tires, still out perform every other F1 car that came before it - from any era.

If the FIA feels that the reduction of speed will make the sport safer, and lend to more wheel to wheel racing, then the FIA doesn't understand what they need to do to improve F1.

F1 is about speed. Take away the speed and what do you have?

[Kicking-back]

SKT - you defeat your own argument slightly.

The cars now are faster than they've ever been.

Yet you cite the turbo era as being good - yet those cars were lapping slower the ones now.

Pegging lap times at about 2003 speeds would be ideal.

[SKT]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
SKT - you defeat your own argument slightly.

The cars now are faster than they've ever been.

Yet you cite the turbo era as being good - yet those cars were lapping slower the ones now.

Pegging lap times at about 2003 speeds would be ideal.

What we're talking about here is the issue of "too much" speed, and how the supposed reduction of speed will somehow save the sport of F1 from itself.

Back in the turbo era pundits espoused the same "too much" speed and the skirted cars disappeared however, as I've noted it wasn't so much about the speed as it was about the "lack of knowledge to manage that speed."

Fast forward to present, modern F1 cars are faster than from any era - with less horsepower, without the fully skirted sides, without turbo's, why? Because F1 has learned to manage speed more efficiently.

The first knee jerk reaction from the FIA in the past regarding "too much" speed ie. turbo, full skirts is faulty thinking - faulty thinking in the realm of F1. It's not about "too much" speed, it's about how one can better manage speed.

So when pundits oncemore espouse to slow down F1 cars - it is the wrong approach.

I can assure you that F1 speeds 10 years from now, will not be slower but faster.

If F1 wants to make F1 more exciting then it's not the reduction of speed that they are needing to address, but rather the reduction of people in the FIA that don't intimately understand the nuances of F1 - reduce their numbers, and one will have a more successful F1 series.

[Kicking-back]

Thing is, slower cornering speeds would lead to more overtaking.

[johnh875]

I think the rate of development in F1 is unsustainable. I can appreciate comments that it is not too fast because the cars are safer, etc. However if speeds increase at the current rate how long will it be before it becomes unsafe? It is much more difficult to build safety into the cars than speed.

Does it really matter what the absolute speed of F1 cars are? Surely the quality of the racing is more important. Having said that it is important that the cars do get faster each year, as part of the interest is in new lap records, etc. However a new lap record should be an achievement, not something that is routine, and should be faster by 1/2 a second not 2 seconds.

It is a fact of racing that teams and drivers will push the limits in every aspect, from suspension component durability to cornering speed and braking markers. What we need to consider is what happens when the limit is crossed, as it is foolish to ignore this or pretend it won't happen.

In other words it is not the increase in speed that is the problem, it is the rate of increase. The only other solution is to make a clean, drastic break as per the change to 1.5L in the 50's - which will not (and does not need to) happen.

[Fuzzyfelt]

If the FIA really want to slow the cars down (we're talking about cornering rather than straight line speed here)then they need only remove the wings.

But, then there are the sponsors ... makes any talk a bout driver safety sound a bit hollow really.

[johnh875]

I don't think they need to remove wings completely, they could set parameters so that nice large advertising hoardings were retained while controlling the level of downforce generated. Also given that wings have been a part of "hi-tech" open wheelers for over 30 years I don't think people would be receptive to F1 without wings!

[dubby99]

I think F1 needs to get rid of the tyre war. Thats were i thing most of the speed has come from.
If they can't settle for one manufacturer for what ever reason
at least remove about 50% of the downforce and please God get rid of driver aids like traction control, these drivers simply don't need them. TC is for wimps.

[Giando]

SKT, there's a limit (masured in G forces) which at a certain point is
unsustainable by the human body, and sometimes, in the last 25 years, the cars have been developed really near this line... it's not a matter of high speed (in straights) but the cornering speed.
And Walled is right saying the tyres are the main target to avoid useless risks.
In a year or two, if FIA wouldn't slow down the cars, we could see laptimes of abotut 3-4 or even 5 seconds down... and that could be really dangerous... for the drivers and for the public safety.