Making F1 Driving more challenging

[Manoah2u]

My proposals, which are achievable.

* Ban cascade wings on front wing, make cars understeer more.
* Standardised steering rack - Make power steering half as powerful as present. Aid yes, not do all the work.
* Standardised active suspension - Allow the driver to tune the ride, but only 3 times per Quali session & Race, unlimited in Fridays & P3. Also cuts costs.
* Re-Introduce the beam wing and increase rear wing width to 2008 size. Beam wing shall have a standardised and aero neutral section in the middle.
* DRS limits, each driver has 150 seconds (1.5 Minutes) per race of DRS, this can be used by driver when he wants - if his car will allow, and for how long, no stupid DRS zones.
* Tyre war - Two tyre companies will manufacture 3 compounds for the entire season. Every race each driver has 5 soft, 4 medium and 3 hard for the entire weekend. P1 drivers get an extra set of mediums. Tyre companies can make one change to a single compound per year as a joker. Hards last a maximum of 200Km/65%, Medium a maximum of 160Km/50% and Softs a maximum of 110km/35%. Each car has to run at least 2 compounds per race, allowing drivers to drive on a hard 2 stopper or more conservatively to a 1 stopper race. Pit windows yes, almost, but more Drivers/Racers battles.
* Steering wheels, limit them to 5 rotaries and 8 buttons or switches. Each button/switch does what it says it does, no Diff Magic crap. However if a Multifunction rotary needs to happen, one other rotary and three buttons car assigned to it permanently.
* Live telemetry is limited to just 32 streams per car, and must be open to all to see. Any more streams must be downloadable after a session. With this a ban on Mission Controls during a live session is also a must.
* Driver coaching Bite Points and Dog Learning on the parade lap is fine, but no tech info on engine or fuel mixes or "where am slower" whilst the car is on the track, pit lane whilst a pit stop yes, track no. Track conversations must be limited to Weather, personal timings to that driver and no other.,
* Bring that bloody nosecone up to the height of the front axle for gods sakes, give the aero guys something back.
* Make ERS systems free and open to development, but allow the teams to use them for 45 seconds a lap. Id open MGU-K, MGU-H, Control Electronics & Batteries open for free development, just as long as each component did not exceed 5 for the season.

I like this,

with some minor tweaks regarding the sections i coloured red:

Driver Coaching: I think parade lap coaching and updates are indeed a good thing to keep, but instead of halting the entire coaching from thereon, I'd say they should only be allowed the same level of 'coaching' or communication on pit entry and pit exit (between the lines), and during safety car period. Calls for a pit ('pit pit pit now, repeat, pit pit pit) should be allowed during the entire race, safety concerns aswell (debris, oil, or accident on turn whatever), and technical damage info should be allowed during the entire race, too (damaged front wing, tire pressure leak, engine failure).

you can't keep engine info out of it because they're limited to a certain amount of powerplants, and it would be unfair to impose radio clampdown with a result of engines getting destroyed because they can't be told to park the car or run the engine in safe mode).

Steering wheels: i'd say there should be no more than 2 rotaries regarding engine settings; off, safe mode or normal mode,
and the other for the electronic part (hybrid), off, safe mode or normal mode.
and an additional rotary for brake balance. total of 3 rotaries max.
Pit limiter, radio button, drink button, reverse, and 2 additional ones.
6 switches and 3 rotaries.

Allow distance info from Fia's official live timing through the steering wheel on car in front and car behind, but 5 seconds across finishline ( gap and laptimes ) paired with driver number. f.e. : cross finishline and on the display appears:

▲ # 3 - 1:25.667 [ - 6.778 sec. ]
▼ # 12 - 1:25.890 [ + 1.334 sec. ]

Active suspension: ban.

[strad]

Just so you know..
Those old Silver Arrows went over 180mph on skinny tires that they could break loose just by applying the throttle too aggressively at 170mph, Had drum brakes, and the steering wheel vibrated so much that it would cause massive blisters even with gloves on.
Button ain't got the balls. believe what you will.
what they wore

.
wet weather goggles

[Manoah2u]

Just so you know..
Those old Silver Arrows went over 180mph on skinny tires that they could break loose just by applying the throttle too aggressively at 170mph, Had drum brakes, and the steering wheel vibrated so much that it would cause massive blisters even with gloves on.
Button ain't got the balls. believe what you will.
what they wore
http://www.stradsplace.com/photos/whathewore.jpg
.
wet weather goggles
http://www.stradsplace.com/photos/Wet-W ... s_1911.jpg

oh wow i know what they wore, i know what the cars looked like, i know how 'fragile' these things were, but i didn't know they actually went THAT insanely fast

and i didn't say they had the same 'balls'. i rather mention that the 'physical' capabilities of current F1 drivers exceed that of former drivers, solely underlining an important factor why drivers might be less prone to 'collapse' nowadays......

i didn't intent to paint a picture that driving a 300kmph + vehicle takes the same 'balls' or 'guts' as to drive the 'deathtraps' of old, only pointing out that it's not like it's a 'walk in the park' either.

[strad]

Not to argue but you have drivers today decrying the fact they don't even have to break a sweat. They, the drivers have said it's too easy.
I don't have it anymore but I used to keep this old Road and Track article where they drove an old Auto Union and scared themselves when at 170mph they floored it and broke the tires loose and got squirrely.
Those cars were awesome beasts, but lets not forget that it wasn't until the 60s that they started mandating seatbelt anchoring points. Prior to that if they did have seatbelts they would rip loose, and it wasn't until I believe some point in the 70s, (76 I think), that they were made mandatory.

[Pingguest]

I do not mind if Formula One has become physically easier. I rather see series being technically difficult.

[FW17]

This 500-hp turbo go kart defines true fear

If you wanted to kill yourself—and I mean really, really kill yourself—there might not be a better way to go about it than to strap a hopped-up, 500-horsepower, turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder into a kart and go for glory.

It’s like those people who tame a cougar, live with it for four years, and then feign shock when the cat realizes that human spleen tastes better than kibble. The tragedy’s out there somewhere, waiting to happen.

Until then, the dude behind the wheel of this death machine looks perfectly content to send tires to the smoky beyond while sliding around a track somewhere. But the thing is, if you have something like this in the garage, you’re going to wake up at 3:30 in the morning, and you’ll already be tearing through the neighborhood with nothing but your boxers and a wide grin between you and the imminent road splatter. Like that big cougar, there will come a day when this kart wakes up and realizes that it, too, wants to dine on its master's flesh. Check it out:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=817335084966164

To Mr Coulthard who wants F1 to be more challenging (I remember that chicken s***s comments on driving a Champcar).

[GitanesBlondes]

Who needs a 500HP go kart?

Just strap in a Yamaha R1 engine and you are set to go.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apd1KBjLV8k[/youtube]

[kooleracer]

The real reason F1 has become easier for the drivers is the lack of race speed on the Sunday's. The delta between a hardcore qualification lap and a race lap is as big as 5 seconds. Which is way to much. This means the drivers aren't even driving on the limit off the car on Sunday's. F1 is about speed and challenging the drivers on race day, the latter isn't happening anymore unfortunately. Also F1 is about always going quicker, I find it really akward that F1 cars from 2014 are slower then F1 cars from 2004. To make the challenge bigger for the drivers F1 should look how to make this generation F1 cars as quick or even quicker then the F1 2004 and still use 100kg fuel limit. That only way you can sell this new product. Imagine saying that F1 in 2014 is quicker then the V10 from 2004 with 30 or 40 percent less fuel consumption.

-First they need to let Pirelli make tires that have decent grip and only last 15-20 laps. Buy this I mean tailor made tires for a specific track. Like Bridgestone has done in MotoGP. If don't have 2 suppliers the least the sole supplier can do is make the quickest tire possible for a specific track. Also Pirreli should bring back real qualifying spec tires. Also F1 should get rid of the hard, medium, softs and supersofts, one tire like per race. F1 should not about tire choice or strategy but about the fastest cars and drivers.

-When i visited Silverstone in 2004 the pure grip of the cars through Maggots Becketts, thats what hooked me to F1. I couldn't believe a race-car was able to achieve such speed and agility through corners. So down-force is essential in F1, it stress's the body of the driver and makes it physically more difficult for the drivers. Also with down-force the laptimes will get much quicker which also means that the races will be much more intense for the drivers. Maybe to easiest and the most efficient way to claw back that amount of down-force F1 should think about bringing back ground effect.

-The third change I would make if the two aren't enough would be bringing back refueling and a max fuel tank of 35kg (ofcourse max for the race is still 100kg). This means that delta between race pace and qualifying pace would be smaller. Which means drivers will be doing qualifying like laps during the race just like 10 years ago in 2004.

[Just_a_fan]

Looking back over this thread all I can see is armchair warriors wanting what they think F1 is all about. We have those who want stuff from the '50s, those who want stuff from the '70s and those who want 80/90s stuff.

Lots of comments seem to be about how modern drivers aren't a patch on guys from year X. Well, they may have different risk limits but the modern driver is a whole level more professional and a whole lot more physically honed than the days of yore. You think Fangio could have done 2 hours in 40degrees heat and 90% humidity whilst pulling multiple g loads at Singapore? Think again. The guy was old (relatively) and fat (for his day, not compared to the average modern USian of course). He would have been like Mansell in his return to F1 - he wouldn't fit in a modern F1 car and he wouldn't have been quick.

The old guys were fast in their day. The young guys are fast today and those in between were fast whenever. You can't compare eras and you can't say "X driver in 1955 was better than Y driver in 2005". It's not even comparing apples and oranges; it's like comparing apples and cricket balls - they're both red, round and shiny but that's as far as it goes.

As Moss said, the modern car has so much grip that the way you race them is totally different to his day. There is no comparison. There. Is. No. Comparison.

[GitanesBlondes]

Lots of comments seem to be about how modern drivers aren't a patch on guys from year X. Well, they may have different risk limits but the modern driver is a whole level more professional and a whole lot more physically honed than the days of yore. You think Fangio could have done 2 hours in 40degrees heat and 90% humidity whilst pulling multiple g loads at Singapore? Think again.

You really don't know about the conditions that were involved in a lot of the endurance events Fangio drove in South America?

High altitude, low oxygen environments high up in the Andes that caused drivers to pass out and die in accidents. Days spent driving through dirt roads in some of the worst weather conditions imaginable. Fangio drove successfully through all of that stuff. You don't make it through that stuff if you are not physically honed as the toll that type of driving takes on your body is immense. Many guys simply couldn't make it through the whole event as they were physically spent, Fangio was head and shoulders above many.

Sure if you took 1955 Fangio and did not let him adapt to the car, he wouldn't be pulling multiple G loads in Singapore.

But the inverse also holds true that if you took today's drivers and threw them back into the German GP at the Nurburgring in those cars, if you think they would have made it through the race, think again.

Sure he wasn't slim like today's anorexic drivers --and yes some of them would well qualify as anorexic-- who I don't consider to be in as good of a shape as you would like to imply. If one is starving themselves to meet the weight requirements, the type of physical shape they are in isn't that good.

Just a reminder.

http://jalopnik.com/f1-driver-jean-eric ... 1559375341

Drivers back then might not meet your ideal standard for what a professional race driver should look like, but to casually dismiss them as nothing more than out-of-shape guys is a stretch, and not really a fair assessment to make. They were far more diverse as racing drivers than any of the guys today are. Granted they had to be to make a living.

I consider that to be a far greater indicator of how good a racing driver is; what is their diversity level? Do they only look decent in one particular discipline, or are they fast in everything they drive? Think Mario Andretti or Juan Pablo Montoya. Or do they look good in say F1, but languish as soon as they hit the DTM or other race series?

P.S. today's drivers may be more professional, but they also have none of the personality that made drivers at large so fascinating to watch years ago. They are bland and dull.

[Just_a_fan]

The point I was making, which you appear to agree with, is that you can't compare Fangio's time with today. Different times, different attitudes, just different, different, different.

Races like those in Fangio's day would be shut down today. Lots of deaths - both drivers and spectators - would see the sport killed off. Or it would be changed to, um, what we have today. Surprise, surprise. What we have to day has evolved from what they had then. Times change. F1 has changed to keep with those changing times.

It's all different because it's all changed. Live with it and move on.

[Aesto]

Drivers back then might not meet your ideal standard for what a professional race driver should look like, but to casually dismiss them as nothing more than out-of-shape guys is a stretch, and not really a fair assessment to make.

But what basically amounts to calling today's drivers a bunch of boring, anorexic wimps is? Especially the anorexia comment is just the type of utterly unqualified knee-jerk posting that unfortunately Ive come to expect from opinionated forum warriors. ''Someone is unusually thin? Well, they must be anorexic!'' Anorexia is an eating disorder related to self-worth and a distorted body image. What does that have to do with athletes who lose weight in order to gain a (or negate someone else's) competitive advantage? With a body-mass index over 20 (according to the numbers in the link you posted), Vergne is nowhere near that level, he isn't even underweight (and being underweight is also not a sufficient condition for anorexia).

The whole ''today's drivers would never be able to drive a race car of the 19xxs'' argument, now even perpetuated by some F1 journalists (I think it was MB who made a similar comment at Singapore), is just completely missing the point. Yes, Kvyat or Gutierrez very likely would not have the strength to wrestle around a mid 1980s turbo-powered car, but so what? What exactly is that supposed to prove? Do you think that if those kinds of cars were re-introduced these guys simply would not be able to drive in F1? Of course not. They would simply change their training regimen and gain the necessary weight and muscle in a matter of weeks. Every idiot can get heavier and stronger. Becoming thin while staying fit and resilient is much harder. The diet and exercise of modern F1 drivers is much more controlled than it used to be. Back in the day, between races, the drivers were certainly more likely to be found on a yacht or a five-star restaurant than the their team's fitness studio. Michael Schumacher was really one of the first successful F1 drivers who actually considered his job to be that of an athlete and only since then have racing drivers started to put greater emphasis on their fitness. So I actually think it's a very fair assessment to make that it would take Fangio much longer to get into the physical shape required to pilot a modern F1 driver's car than vice versa.

I consider that to be a far greater indicator of how good a racing driver is; what is their diversity level? Do they only look decent in one particular discipline, or are they fast in everything they drive? Think Mario Andretti or Juan Pablo Montoya. Or do they look good in say F1, but languish as soon as they hit the DTM or other race series?

How is that even relevant to the discussion? Or do you propose that F1 races should require the driver to hop into a different type of car every 20 laps?

P.S. today's drivers may be more professional, but they also have none of the personality that made drivers at large so fascinating to watch years ago. They are bland and dull.

Or that? What does it have to do with F1 driving (supposedly) not being challenging enough? Plus, it's also utterly biased. The only reason we think of the drivers of the past being charismatic is because we have simply forgotten all the other ones (just think of Denny Hulme, for example. He's a WDC and yet nobody EVER mentions him).

[Manoah2u]

Lauda had it in the bag.

1002+ horsepower car engines (assuming this means without the electric part, but even with it it's good figures).
WIIIIIIIIIDE tires.

He said anybody can do what verstappen did (bit cruel imho), even pointed to Lazenby being able to do it even though he
is no racing driver, and put the blame on having narrow tires, and spoken of the progression of the car being a part of it,
having a 'window' or 'margin' to operate within, in other words, there is a huge room for error, room for mistakes, there is
a huge room to 'dose' and 'find yourself' in.

Then he states with 'wide tires', there is either you go up, or you go down, with
a near zero margin, because they are much harder to drive. States these cars are 'easy' to drive, and are like F3 cars, so that's why verstappen can jump in; because essentially, they're overglorified F3 cars.

"So, we need to change Formula 1 i think"

"we need to change into agressive cars, with big wheels, huge wings, 1002+ horespower so if you lose you'll go like this....and no kid is able to do it"

"honestly i'm not joking, i'll have to speak to Bernie about it".

Niki to Replace Bernie porfavor.

[The Egg]

I see where he is going with that; to make the driver the limiting factor again, rather than the car.

[Manoah2u]

I see where he is going with that; to make the driver the limiting factor again, rather than the car.

Yes, as in physical endurance to cope with the G-forces of the cornering, aswell as the 'pedal sensitivity' or 'skill' to 'dose' the amount of power transferred to the wheels. A combo of skill and strenght.

Wings & Tires to make them stick to the ground. Power to make them 'trecherous'.

That way, physical sternght is important (a 17 year old will neve be as physically fit as a 25 year old), and experience is even more key. That way, the 'old dogs' don't need replacement that fast, and drivers aren't as disposable.