How do we go about "Improving The Show" ?
- Published on Apr 8th, 2010 by Adam MilleneuveThe what?
It's become as common as "for sure" and "turning the wheel" but "improving the show" seems to be one of the sport's newest common phrases and is one of the great concerns at the moment, sparked off from the first grand prix being snubbed as 'Bore-rain'.
We may have had the thriller of a race downunder in Melbourne and a pretty good race in Malaysia only a week later, but without wanting to sound negative, you'd be a fool to miss the fact that the main reason these last two races were good fun was purely to the weather causing slippery tracks and mixed up starting grids. It's a worrying truth that the rest of the races in 2010 (especially Valencia) stand a good chance of being as entertaining as watching paint dry with a re-run of Bahrain 2010 on in the background.
- A clever graphic inspired from the Malaysian GP © Chris Labrooy
The ridiculous
As a result, rather predictably, good ol'Bernie has said to the press that he likes the idea of reverse grids, i.e. qualify on pole position and you'll be in 24th for the race and so on or some kind of similar turnaround to put the quick cars at the back. Then, to go up a notch there are suggestions for a qualifying lottery.
Although, on the face of it, the reverse grid idea sounds feasible, in reality it would be as good as Bernie's idea to have shortcuts on the tracks. The idea of sprinklers to artificially recreate the thrills witnessed in Australia would work in theory, but would also make a mockery of the sport. As for the lottery idea, well that would just take qualifying away from us - i.e. often the most exciting part of a race weekend.
To KERS or not to KERS
So what else could be done to "improve the show" - KERS (the energy recovery systems that give effectively a power boost) was introduced and then quickly dropped by some of the teams in 2009 and they've agreed to not run it at all in 2010 due to costs. In our eyes, KERS could be a double hit of goodness for F1 - it would boost the current lack of any real 'green' emphasis and if worked out properly could definitely go someway to add a touch of entertainment.
KERS failed largely due to the costs, but also due to the ridiculous limitations - limited power boost and the fact that it could only be used for 7seconds per lap - with the added weight, the benefits were clearly outweighed - just ask McLaren and Ferrari who arguably put a great amount of effort into the system and consequently had dire seasons, whereas BrawnGP and Red Bull had beautifully developed cars, KERS-less but quick and we all know how well they did in 2009.
Cleaning the 'dirty air'
The 'dirty air' phrase has been used in every race so far in 2010 and no doubt will be for the rest of the season. In short, 'dirty air' is the name given to the wake behind an F1 car. When another car is following, looking to possibly overtake they get stuck in this 'dirty air' and lose grip and hence, cannot overtake.
The best analogy for this is if you look to boats - i.e. imagine a large boat on the seas powering along - the water it's approaching and traveling through is calm and uniform, whereas the water behind it is all over the shop, going off in different directions and would be referred to as 'rough' and unpredictable. If another boat was following this one, it would have far less control when following, with the wake left from the boat ahead compared to when it was happily sailing along all alone.
Back to F1 - how can this 'dirty air' be cleaned - simple - lose the reliance on wings - the massive regulation change of 2009 forced cars to lose the little intricate 'winglets' and went someway towards reducing this reliance, but with double diffusers and the huge front and rear wings the dirty air is still a problem. Back in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, with less effective aerodynamics the cars were able to follow more easily, and further more, back in the 60s with no wings at all, dirty air wasn't much of an issue. So is that the answer - go back in time?
See the evolution of grand prix cars in this video:
Putting your foot down
Often referred to when accelerating hard, but back in the day, drivers had to put their foot down hard on the brakes too to ensure they stopped in time and the skill of out-braking the competition made for terrific action and overtaking manouvres. With modern brakes being so powerful the cars can stop in the blink of an eye. Also, ignoring Vettel's issues in Australia, the brakes aren't of great concern in terms of reliability and can easily last a race.
Should the brakes be less powerful? It certainly would reintroduce the skill of out-braking other drivers because there would be a greater margin to for braking and just as with tyres, if they are over-used they'll wear thin. What's more we'd also hear the commentators using the classic "he's the last of the late brakers there" - again this going back in time...
Tired of tyre talk
The ban on refueling for 2010 was music to our ears here at the Sett - in one swift change, grand prix racing is back to being grand prix racing rather than short sprint races. In theory. The only problem is that over time, the tyres in F1 have got so good that they can last an entire race, even the softer, grippier ones. Also, the difference in performance of a set of rubber that's done half a race distance isn't too different from a brand new set. The only reason the drivers are pitting to change tyres is because they have to, due to one of the most ridiculous rules ever introduced - drivers must use both types of tyre during a race.
The rule ensures Bridgestone tyres are the talk of at least some of the race weekend, which will please their marketing chaps and also Bridgestone won't make tyres that don't last a race weekend because that will make their product look 'weak' and creates a potential PR disaster - a little short-sighted if you ask us.
Seriously though, imagine that rather than having a rule that said drivers must change tyres, instead they introduced a super-duper soft tyre that took over 2 seconds off the laptime, but would be worn out within 20 laps - that would be mega exciting, generate over-taking opportunities and also ensure that tyres get as much publicity as possible. The rule for drivers to change tyres would become defunct. Good idea?
Looking for freedom
If you look through any grand prix history book, you'll find yourself reading about cars with turbos, skirts, active suspension, having fan-power, six, or even twelve wheels as well as strange wings and layouts - so much so that the starting grid could look more like whacky races than the current, more uniform grid of samey looking cars, resembling a company car park for sales reps (go with us hear, we're fully aware that an F1 car is better looking than a Focus)
There are pros and cons to design and engineering freedom and if you asked any engineer in the sport, they'd relish the chance to design a car from a blank canvas rather than to the tight restrictions of modern day regulations. It could create more excitement too, but by equal measure could create a grid of cars that differed in performance so much that no one would be able to overtake anyone.
Back to the future
Now, from reading this, it's clear that we (as in fans of F1) aren't short on ideas, and that there are definitely ways to 'improve the show' but the only problem is that most of these points are looking back at previous decades of F1 and then there's the argument that F1 is the pinnacle of technology as well as the pinnacle of motorsport, so why should they not be allowed all the wings, fancy tyres etc. Tough call, but here at Badger we just want the sport to live up to our tagline "Formula 1 isn't boring..." - if that means taking onboard lessons learned from the past, then so be it.
Do you have an opinion?
Of course you do - share it below in the comments and enjoy some Badger banter.
- Further reading:
- Doughnuts and other ways to make F1 more appealing
- Breaking the Formula - Rules are there to be.. changed?
Thanks to Chris Labrooy for use of his stunning graphics, see his website for more and hi-res versions
Comments and Discussion
A few quick thoughts.
1. I hate to say it but a spec tire, wider, full slick (medium profile is ok, but nothing low profile at 18" a proposal I saw the other day was (I believe intentionally) hysterical. But a lower profile 15" wheel with a wider track width.
2. bring back under floor downforce, and use the CDG wing proposal. Cars could follow closer without nearly the issue, generate a underfloor template.
Let teams develop within the top of the car for additional grip and play within the CDG wing boundaries and the front wing for aero development. Open up the front of the car for aero development as well (still gotta be open wheeled). That way the wake issues would be cut down and you wouldn't leave the circuit, or just be unable to pass if you got behind someone.
3. If we want to see some real innovation, develop rules around power, allow only 2.0 liters of petrol area for combustion, any configuration, and up to a certain number of kilowatts can be maintained in any way possible. Talk about surprising solutions (look for flywheels to show up and a Williams advantage in about .2 seconds!).
4. Brain transplant Bernie with a NASCAR marketing specialist and a FOX sports director (seriously, that guy has it all wrong). Open up the paddocks, increase the ability of the press to talk to team people, generate stories, story-lines, and get people involved and caring with what's going on out of the car, (hmmm could this be why NASCAR is such a success, while Indy and F1 flail about?) The issue isn't the die hard fans, it's converting our signifigant others into being interested in the sport, rather than being ashamed to know us come race weekends.
But what do I know, I'm just one guy.
And NEVER decrease braking, that's just plain unsafe.
of course we want to maintain safety but having brakes that needed to be looked after would give more driver skill rather than just having awesome braking at every corner.
In reality, whether it's possible without risking safety we're not sure, but in theory it makes sense no?
Completely agree with the tyres point - as long as they don't last a whole race and therefore involves more driver skill.
Wasn't underfloor downforce outlawed for safety reasons, with cars being too fast? Agree though, back in the day with skirts the cars were awesomely quick.
You may be one guy Fred, but in the words of Michael Knight, it only takes one man to make a difference...
My turn!
Reverse grids would never work since everyone will just aim to be the slowest.
This is Formula 1; it is about being the best, not 'giving everyone a chance'. It's only since the popularity has blossomed over the past 10 years that people have started loudly complaining. F1 has never been like Clio Cup racing and it never will be. There are only a few things that make the modern F1 show suffer; diffusers, the tyre rule, the drivers and the circuits.
Drivers are less likely to take risks nowadays, the majority of the field is still made up of people far too used to waiting for pitstops in order to overtake. And a large chunk of the circuits are Tilke-drome's which are gradually getting worse with each new country's bid he infects, though i suspect what makes the circuits harder is the problem caused by the diffuser's.
Getting rid of the wings is not the way to go. While i'm not an Aerodynamicist, i still have a basic understanding of airflow due to the constant features that are shoved down our throats every year during pre-race buildups.
Sure, make the wings smaller have less planes, but a rear wing helps create a bigger hole in the air which encourages drivers to follow closely. Watch 70's and 80's F1 races to see this in action. The thing that makes it impossible to follow in the modern age is the diffuser which swirls the air around and blasts it upwards putting a load of disturbed air where there used to be a tunnel... if that makes sense.
Unfortunately due to FOTA, the teams now have too loud a voice and can block rule changes intended to improve the show if they "haven't got enough time to implement them". If changes need to be made, then they need to be forced, forget next year, ban the diffuser's NOW. It's not like the cars aren't going to work without them, the drivers will just have to go a bit slower and have some more wing cranked on.
The tyre rule speaks for itself, there's no option for a driver to risk a non-stop run which removes a potential area of excitement. Some drivers who work the tyres harder would have to stop at least once, whereas those who are kind would have the option of not stopping, this would create more opportunities for excitement.
And don't touch the brakes, the one thing that F1 cars do better than anything else is stop.
Personally i don't see anything wrong with F1, it's never been about cars constantly changing position, these are the best drivers in the world and rarely make errors. Besides, 2 cars don't have to swap their positions for it to be a good battle.
If wheel banging and cars flying off left, right and centre is someones idea of how racing should be, then they're watching the wrong sport.
I think under no circumstances should cars and systems be artificially dumbed down for the sake of the "show".
This IS the pinnacle of motorsport, and we should find ways to transmit the exhiliration of the skills/technology, rather than make a circus of clowns - sprinklers.... puleese! how about randomly placed upstanding nails on the track...
We should be looking ahead. In my mind I see F1 in 50-100 years racing in Transparent Fibre tubes with no "race lines" where everyone has to crowd in, but instead we have an infinity of combinations and permutations... well, maybe
I would love to be a computer/graphics programmer to test this theory, or have enough €€€ to commission a study of teh possible quickest routes in a tubular track.
my twopence....
I completely agree with Dave (and Alonso!) that F1 isn't actually about overtaking. Yeah, overtaking is brilliant, but the reason we are so obsessed with it is that we get so little of it. If overtaking was really that important, GP2 would be a lot more popular than F1.
I think that there is such a thing as trying too hard to "improve the show" and in some respects I'd rather see a "boring" race than an artificial one (punish people that qualify well by making them start last- ridiculous!).
Some races are not very exciting but some times everything comes together beautifully and we have a brilliant race. That's the beauty of it.
Anyway, if you want to do one thing, stop that Tilke dude from designing any more tracks.
As for the underfloor downforce, it was banned because it was too dangerous as it made you go around corners stupidly quickly but if you went over a bump and your car got too far away from the ground, you lost suction and flew off. Not great.
personally i think this year's F1 is great! diffusers aside!
on a complete random tangent
how about interactive racing....
spectators could text the race control with their choice of artificial rain in certain areas of the track. a live 'weather' map would then be supplied to the teams who could then make judgements on the race...
totally farcical but hell if not in F1 but some other motorsport, that could be rather fun!
Ok Thanks Dave, so you've basically agreed with us
Yes, wings need to simplified or removed (the latter is too drastic)
Tyres - abolish the stupid must use 2 types rule
Tracks - keep the good ones, lose the 'tilke-dromes' - sadly doesn't seem like we're going to lose the tilke tracks any time soon...
Your final point is true - F1 is not about people changing position on every corner like MotoGP or what have you, but there is a risk of more and more processional races, which definitely needs to be avoided.
On your point about aero - the rear wing doesn't punch a hole in the air, the cars to that without a rear wing.... but yes, less components and simpler aero would definitely help!
A good two pence, you're right in the sense that this is the pinnacle of motorsport, but tech doesn't make it good racing and that is needed to keep F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport - a happy medium is needed - agree?
True, the underfloor aero was ace but crazy dangerous too so it will never make a come back. As for Tilke and his track designs - it amazes us at Badger that he's still got the job.
Yep - lovely idea and I'm glad you stated it's not for F1. Our favourite idea in the 'making f1 more appealing' was driver to driver radio, where we the viewers could listen in too.
Imagine it - in Malaysia we'd here Vettel laughing at Webber leaving the door open on the first bend followed by some Aussie slang... most entertaining...
Now a completely random idea! How about the drivers complete half the race distance for half the points (grid based on the current qualifying), have half an hour break to re-set up the grid in reverse order to how they finished the first half (so first may get you 12.5 points but you start the second race last), and have the second race in the opposite direction on the track!!! Now thats sure to catch out even the best drivers!
I LOVE the driver to driver radio idea!
I have a feeling Hamilton would be particularly entertaining...
Overtaking is only hard because the capabilities of the (top) cars are so close. You generally don't see anybody having trouble overtaking a Hispania, after all, even when they're on the same lap. I think that problem is being caused by all the crazy technical rules meant to reign in costs, which means that it's not virtually impossible for teams to out-engineer each other. With the FIA issuing a pre-ban on "active suspensions" that would adjust ride height between qualifying and the race, you've killed another area of innovation, and hence differentiation of car performance.
The solution is to set budget limits, I think. Just tell the teams they can spend $80 million a year, or whatever, but let them do basically ANYTHING within that budget cap. Except for cost, I wish there were no disincentives to innovation and progress. KERS. Active Suspensions. Weird new aero concepts. Engines that rev to 30,000 rpm. Whatever. Unless it's too costly, or outright life-threatening, let people innovate. That'll give you your overtaking.
It will also spoil the show for some people because you'll have teams once in a while that are wildly domninant, ala Ferrari in the late 90s and early 2000s, but I think it would be worth it.
Wow, I had to check the name at the top of the article to make sure I didn't write this. I agree with everything wholeheartedly!
I think the main problem at the moment is the farcical tyre regulations. If you give drivers freedom to choose, and have a proper spread of tyre performance, there will always be some people going for the Alesi route of one hard set for the whole race and others going for the Mansell approach of stopping near the end for fresh boots. The problem is that cannot happen now even if teams/drivers want to.
KERS is also an obvious differentiator but as you rightly say, the way it was introduced in such a restricted and prescribed fashion meant it was useless. It also didn't give the teams an incentive to make it better - once they could met the allowances, they stopped development. Hopefully with Max out of the way, the "headmaster knows best" mentality will make way for a more reasoned approach.
Oh and as for dirty wake, how about a massive high drag, low downforce, big slipstream barn door Handford wing stuck to the back?
Thanks for the comments David S, glad you're enjoying the Badger. I hope your suggestion that the "headmaster knows best" days have gone is correct - Jean Todt (Mosley's replacement) has been quiet so far, almost too quiet - the only change that's been obvious is that the stewards now have previous F1 drivers with them...
Won't make a difference if the diffusers are still there!
Except the Handford wing produces a massive slipstream 300m behind the car. It won't matter if it's way back through the corner as it'll still be sucked past on the straights.
I liked the tyre idea especially. Tyres are sometimes overlooked but they're just too damn good at the mo'. Remember Silverstone when Mansell pitted for fresh rubber and Piquet stayed out? It lead to a classic scene and some more gambles with strategy as well as making driving styles and creativity more clear to the viewer. Might also be nice for Sauber as they were meant to be great on their rubber but it's not exactly helped them much
Agree with a lot of the comments here esp Ino (don't be too hard on Tilke though as he made Turkey with the epic turn 8 which is the best corner in F1 and he has to work with those awful restrictions!)
I'm hoping the emphasis on aero goes soon. I doubt it will; it will probably be typical FIA stubborness to wait until we've just about all given up and then change the rules like they did with getting rid of grooved tyres and refuelling. That said, Todt has brought in some very good changes and I think he could have some good ideas in store.
Kers should be used if the teams want as a modern day turbo type of idea and it should be free to develop. The FIA should loosen up on engines too as I can predict Monza now - Merc engined Mclaren will win with all the other Merc powered cars doing incredibly well. I hope that's right or I look a plank.
I just have to say really nice article! Clearly a good talking point too so thank you!
Bridgestone are leaving at the end of the year, so that's going to shake things up for 2011. Michelin are close to a return though it's not certain they'll be the sole supplier- both Hankook and Khumo are thought to want in. How do people feel about a return to multiple tyre suppliers?
I know tyre wars have their flaws and I'd rather avoid them just because of the mess they have caused before but if I'm completely honest I really adore the idea of that competition and a bit more variety
I think freedom to find yourself an edge is always a good thing. The downside is always cost, but with tyres you can have a tyre war which doesn't affect the teams. Just mandate a maximum yearly cost to the team and let the tyre companies get on with it.
My preference would be for them to provide xx number of tyres for yy cost and be prepared (if the teams want them) to supply everyone on the grid.
This nicely allows for situations when there is only one supplier, but also encourages competition at the tyre manufacturers expense. it will either stabilise to one supplier because the others don't get value for money, or it will have a tyre war at the manufacturers cost which they won't mind because it's good value for money (otherwise why are they there again?)
Hi Steph90, welcome to F1 Badger.
Glad you highlighted the Mansell Vs Piquet race - its the finest example of why banning refueling was a great decision and how tyre wear is much more entertaining - if grand prix had proper super soft tyres that couldn't last a whole race it would be so so entertaining.
Turn 8 at Turkey is great, but the best?? What about Eau Rouge - I know everyone says it, but it has to be the best corner in F1, surely!?
As for engines, yes the FIA should free up the teams to use as many revs and power as they like - with fuel being precious it would introduce a whole new element and give the engineers a challenge, i.e. economy vs speed.... brilliant and what grand prix should be about.
Glad you liked the article!
second that!
Three ideas that might help:
What about limiting the fuel for the race and lifting the engine revs restriction? It would need to be very carefully calculated so that pushing too hard for too long would result in not finishing or having to "turn down the engine" for the rest of the race.
An energy recovery system could be added to help fuel economy and provide extra boost - but please start the race empty and then let it be used freely the batteries lasting much longer than one race - or use a flywheel.
Increase the ride height slightly and stipulating a flat floor with no holes (or diffusers) to reduce the impact of turbulent air on a following car.
Istanbul Park is a brilliant track and the best thing Tilke's ever done, it's just a pity the rest of his contributions are all slight variations on each other.
Turn 8 better than Eau Rouge? I wouldn't like to choose, though Eau Rouge these days is flat out all the way through, whereas Turn 8 requires blending on and off of the throttle. Copse deserves mentioning too if we're talking about the best corners.
Back on topic: Another example in support of having the choice of not stopping at all is Mexico '86. Senna, Piquet and Prost all stopped for tyres at least once each and cleared the way for Berger to win by not stopping at all.
I'd be very careful about introducing a fuel saver formula. Although it might be relevant to the eco-friendly times and I loved watching the fuel limited races in the 80s, it's taking away the sport of it. Imagine the tour de france being awarded to the cyclist who ate the least amount of food.
The trick is not to limit fuel, but make it in the teams interest to be better at managing fuel by virtue of getting a performance boost. Unlimited KERS means a performance boost, plus potentially lower starting weight from carrying less fuel. That should be the incentive rather than a restriction.
The other thing that should be allowed is diseasels, but only on a equal footing (e.g. 2.4litres with no turbo) and not like in Le Mans where they get extra capacity and two turbos, then everyone marvels at why they win.
Thanks very much and I love the site! I also really appreciate that you have taken the time to reply to everyone's posts. That makes the site very personal, shows a lot of care and involves the reader more so thank you
I agree completely about the tyres and they really shouldn't last so long although I doubt Birdgestone will want to be seen to make tyres which fall apart so quickly
Personally, I think Eau Rouge is the most spectacular corner in F1 but it isn't the challenge it once was. Maybe the run off could be reduced a bit but turn 8 at Istanbul seems to be a real challenge for the drivers. It's just personal opinion and ER is stunning but turn 8 is a monster of a corner for the stress it puts on the car and driver. I hope Petrov can bring in some fans to Turkey like he apparently did when he was in GP2 and it might save the venue, then that corner may have a chance to become a classic!
I completely forgot to mention revs and that is another wonderful point Adam. Engines should be less restricted but specifically the revs too.
Oh and I think I've managed to find a clip of the Mansell vs Piquet for anyone who wants to relive that moment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUrQ6GkEUs4
Dave "Copse deserves mentioning too if we’re talking about the best corners" agree. Actually the first sector of Silverstone or even Suzuka would get a nod from me.
Good example with Mexico too.
Thanks Steph90 and good one finding that clip! Hope you continue to enjoy the 'Badger. And yes, we like other peoples comments on our articles so it's always good to generate discussion!
You should consider joining our social network - it's called the Sett, register here: http://www.f1badger.com/register
These ideas are spot on and inspiring a follow up article! Flat floors with no diffuser is a sure fire good thing.
Good point on empty KERS at the start of a race and as for the race fuel limitation, that's an interesting one.. hmm, how would it work?
Thanks! Registered