Is Formula 1 becoming too slow?

[krisfx]

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, men with huge cajones used to engage in racing like this. But then, the automobile evolved to the point where they were too powerful and too fast for any racing circuit.And that's when racing changed. From that point forward, a racer could not just bring the fastest car possible to the track and let 'er rip. The speed of the cars had to be managed and that's when racing stopped being racing and became "an entertainment product".

Agree with the reasoning, but disagree with the conclusion

I agree the problem started when F1 cars were too powerful and too fast, but not only for any circuit, but also for the drivers. F1 not only reached track limits, also human limits. 6g turns are simply too much. Aircraft pilots can take around 10-12g, but that´s completely different because they only suffer vertical forces, they can´t "turn" sideways like a car, so they don´t have to hold their body and head. They only need to worry about the blood reaching his head, but F1 drivers have to hold their head (and helmet) sideways, and at 6g turns that´s a lot of kg to hold with your neck, specially for 2 continuous hours

I think I read some years ago a driver faint may be possible due to the fatigue and that obviously can´t be a possibility, so from that point cars simply can´t be faster... at least while a driver is inside

So the regulations need to limit cars potential, and since the cars evolve during the seassons, from time to time regulations need to put a lower limit banning new solutions (ground effect, EBD...), reducing the wings, etc. to keep them into the limits.

But I wouldn´t say that means F1 is an entertainment product, it´s the same as always, the only difference is engineers are limited to the regulations while some time ago they were free to test any new idea. For drivers it´s the same, nothing changed, they have to make the most of the car they drive and beat the rivals, so the racing itself is the same

In the future I´m sure we´ll see a new competition with automated cars, or cars driven remotely. Then we will see what´s the max potential of a car with current technology, but if we want to see drivers competing inside the car that simply is not possible

When you pull G in an aircraft, you still have to support your head... I've had the experience.

Back on Topic, I feel the cars have gotten slower since 2004, but they aren't that much off. I don't reckon we'll see GP2 cars that are faster than F1 cars next year.

I'm pretty disappointed that it gets slower when they change the rules, but that's just how it goes, it's a shame we don't get racing improvements that aren't artificial to go with it.

[megz]

There seems to be a lot of talk about humans incapable of handling g loads higher than 9 - 10 without g suits. We have a lot of proof to show that humans will handle far higher instantaneous loads without dying or lasting damage in a number of heavy accidents recently - figured I'd bring it up seeing as no one else had.

[Andres125sx]

There seems to be a lot of talk about humans incapable of handling g loads higher than 9 - 10 without g suits. We have a lot of proof to show that humans will handle far higher instantaneous loads without dying or lasting damage in a number of heavy accidents recently - figured I'd bring it up seeing as no one else had.

No directly, but yes, I said it. The limit always depend on the duration and number of repetitions, so even when Kubica suffered more than 40 Gs on his accident in Canada, that means nothing about the limit they can handle in a race

In my book CART races and F1 races last a lot more than 10 minutes

And in the very same book do they run around in a circle with a constant speed and G force?
In reality you have maybe 10% of the F1 tracks with one or two corners that has any prolonged G force.

I´m sure you know these limits depend on the duration, but also on the number of repetitions.

It´s not the same supporting 6 Gs for 3 seconds, than supporting 6 Gs for 3 seconds, then 4 for 1 second, then 5 for 2 seconds, then 4,5 for 1 second, and repeat all the process again 70 times without any rest in between

That´s what F1 drivers do, they don´t support 6 Gs on every corner, but they support more than 4 G´s on any medium or high speed corner, around 5 Gs on most brakings, and repeat it continuously for 2 hours. That lowers the limit they can support in a good ammount, so the limit of 6 Gs for 10 minutes is not aplicable here, but works as a reference to know they can´t support 6 G´s on a race because of the number of repetitions.

[turbof1]

There seems to be a lot of talk about humans incapable of handling g loads higher than 9 - 10 without g suits. We have a lot of proof to show that humans will handle far higher instantaneous loads without dying or lasting damage in a number of heavy accidents recently - figured I'd bring it up seeing as no one else had.

That's different. The G forces felt during cornering speed are applied constantly as long as the corner goes. During a crash you can get g forces of 50g, but only during a fraction of a moment.

[SectorOne]

Kenny Bräck experienced a peak of 214G (i believe it´s the record in motorsport). I can´t imagine what 200G for a split second would feel like...

[hollus]

Define split second... (the T in F1T!).
200g for a split second feels like punching a concrete wall, not even hard. Part of yor hand will experience way more than 200g. You might be hurt but your hand will survive.
200g... in what, where, for how long, measured how?

[SectorOne]

I don´t know the exact milliseconds of his crash.
You can read about it a little bit here.
If you want even more technical information i think emailing the organizers of the series is a good idea.

http://www.kennybrack.com/pages/personal-info/2003.html

In the same way we talk about G forces here that are registered around corners in F1 cars, that same system recorded 200G in Bräck´s crash.

[Andres125sx]

Define split second... (the T in F1T!).
200g for a split second feels like punching a concrete wall, not even hard. Part of yor hand will experience way more than 200g. You might be hurt but your hand will survive.

Maybe, but your hand don´t have a brain inside hitting the cranium, or internal organs displacing...

[Tim.Wright]

Obviously the 200G was recorded at the accelerometer and would be a peak event measured in milliseconds.

Its beside the point anyway, the discussion is about how much can drivers repeatedly endure at a reasonable duty cycle over 300km/2 hours. This number would be under 10G for sure.

[turbof1]

I think a crash like Kubica in 2007 comes to mind:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ-8DM0fx4Q[/youtube]
If I am correct he had 75G during a fraction of a moment, where he hit the second wall nearly frontal. The 75G apply I believe after the crash structures got shattered (but absorbed a lot of the energy already) and car hits the wall with the harder parts.

A simple comparison would be kicking a ball on a wall: the moment it fully bended on the wall is the moment the most force is applied, but it quickly, almost instantly, drops away.

Kubica had a bit of luck there; first the nose absorbed a whole lot of the force, then the side impact structures took another chunk out of it. He could easily have hit 300G if not for those parts. He got away with a mild concussion and a stiff neck.

[Blanchimont]

You should be careful when comparing G forces. For cornering or braking, the car body and the driver should feel the same acceleration. But when a crash occurs the accelerations at the front/middle/back of the car and the driver's head/body can differ.

How severe a crash for the human head is can be estimated with the HIC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_injury_criterion

[Andres125sx]

I think a crash like Kubica in 2007 comes to mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ-8DM0fx4Q
If I am correct he had 75G during a fraction of a moment, where he hit the second wall nearly frontal. The 75G apply I believe after the crash structures got shattered (but absorbed a lot of the energy already) and car hits the wall with the harder parts.

A simple comparison would be kicking a ball on a wall: the moment it fully bended on the wall is the moment the most force is applied, but it quickly, almost instantly, drops away.

Kubica had a bit of luck there; first the nose absorbed a whole lot of the force, then the side impact structures took another chunk out of it. He could easily have hit 300G if not for those parts. He got away with a mild concussion and a stiff neck.

I wouldn´t say lucky, maybe lucky to be 2007 because 20-30 years ago that crash would have been mortal. When I watched it live I was really worried about Kubica´s life.

This accident is the best proof about how safe F1 cars are today, I can barely believe Robert didn´t get any serious injury there, the accident is impresive, crashing with a wall almost head on at that speed is one of the worst accidents a driver can suffer...

But that´s not luck, that´s the role of the.... carbon cockpit/survival cell (don´t know the name in english, sorry ), and it worked flawlessly =D>

[turbof1]

I think a crash like Kubica in 2007 comes to mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ-8DM0fx4Q
If I am correct he had 75G during a fraction of a moment, where he hit the second wall nearly frontal. The 75G apply I believe after the crash structures got shattered (but absorbed a lot of the energy already) and car hits the wall with the harder parts.

A simple comparison would be kicking a ball on a wall: the moment it fully bended on the wall is the moment the most force is applied, but it quickly, almost instantly, drops away.

Kubica had a bit of luck there; first the nose absorbed a whole lot of the force, then the side impact structures took another chunk out of it. He could easily have hit 300G if not for those parts. He got away with a mild concussion and a stiff neck.

I wouldn´t say lucky, maybe lucky to be 2007 because 20-30 years ago that crash would have been mortal. When I watched it live I was really worried about Kubica´s life.

This accident is the best proof about how safe F1 cars are today, I can barely believe Robert didn´t get any serious injury there, the accident is impresive, crashing with a wall almost head on at that speed is one of the worst accidents a driver can suffer...

But that´s not luck, that´s the role of the.... carbon cockpit/survival cell (don´t know the name in english, sorry ), and it worked flawlessly =D>

He did got a bit lucky. When he hit the second wall, his car was angled in such a way that the nose could absorb a part of the impact and that the sidepods could take another chunk out of it. Less angle and only the nose would have absorbed the impact, more angle and the nose would simply have broken off without absorbing a bit of the force and thus the sidepods could in that case absorbed so much before it ran out of crushable material.

Basicilly his car was just right positioned to have 2 crash structures instead of one to absorb the impact.

That being said, F1 cars are, save from the head, much much safer then road cars. The survival cell (you did got the name right) plus the impact structures allows the drivers to have a very high survival rate in case of high speed impacts. The only thing exposed is the head from the front. Also note that when the remains of the car were upside down, the roll hoop still protected his head.

The FIA should focus more on such safety measures then on tediously try to keep cars from gaining a few seconds over the years. They are still introducing now and then new structures, but not at a fast enough rate, just running years of research before they get to apply it.

[Stradivarius]

I don't think the lap time directly is of much importance. F1 could well be 5 seconds slower than GP2 without it being very noticable to the audience. But I think it is important for formula 1 to have the fastest cars around the tracks on which they are driving. Formula 1 is not the pinnacle of motor racing because of the entertaining races. Millions of people what each formula 1 race, but formula 1 is probably the series that produces the least exciting races of all, if you just look for action on the track. A local gokart race would display more overtaking and closer racing without ever being considered broadcasted on TV at all.

I believe that formula 1 will only maintain its position as long as it is considered the pinnacle of motorsports. If someone started a competing series, driving on the same circuits 5 s faster than the f1 cars, I think it would steal a lot of attention away from formula 1. The fact that formula 1 cars are the fastest cars around the circuit is a very important one, I think. For the fans, I also think it is important to see that progress is being made. To me it was quite fascinating to observe the improvements of engines until 2006. They were pushing the limits all the time and reached engine speeds close to 20 000 rpm in the end. Also the teams were doing more testing, running more wind tunnels and spending more money. I am mentioning this not because it necessarily means it's good for the sport, but it's a very sharp contrast to what we see today. F1 today is about limiting testing, saving money, saving tires, saving fuel, limiting engine speeds. And even the driver is criticised if he drives faster than he should, as we have often heard on Vettel's team radio. These things make formula 1 less fascinating than it was.

I also think it's a bit unfortunate that today's cars are slower than the 10 year old f1-cars you may see at a museum. Most of the lap records are from 2004 when looking at curcuits that haven't been changed since then, like Albert Park, Sepang, Monaco, Nürburgring and Monza. I am aware that the refueling ban means that the times are not directly comparable, but usually, the fastest laps are set on the last stint, and then it doesn't really matter that much, as the fuel loads are comparable to what they would have been with refueling. Anyway, the difference is typically 4-5 seconds. In qualifying, its a different story, because today they drive qualifying on low fuel, while in 2004 they were not allowed to refuel between qualifying and the race. In addition, each driver only drove one lap, which meant that the circuit was not as quick as today, when each driver makes several attempts in each session, which tends to improve track conditions. Additionally, when the drivers get several attempts to do a quick lap, they will go a bit closer to the limits, knowing that they can try again if they make a mistake, or that they won't loose much because they already have done a competitive lap time.

[SectorOne]

F1 could well be 5 seconds slower than GP2 without it being very noticable to the audience.