back to future

**nikola63** · 2nd November 2006, 20:51

I think that most important is safety. But if you wanna see whos' The man, we have to go back cars with manual gear. No electronic support systems, nothing !!!!

**SoCalF1Fan** · 2nd November 2006, 22:44

Originally posted by nikola63
I think that most important is safety. But if you wanna see whos' The man, we have to go back cars with manual gear. No electronic support systems, nothing !!!!

the pinnacle of technology in motorsport and you want a standard H pattern?

maybe if they want back to a more 'standard sequential" (ie no paddles, just the single sequential gear selector like say rally cars...) in order for them to move thier hand off the sterring wheel in order to shift. But to go back to a clutch operated standard transimission, no way.

**SchumiForza** · 2nd November 2006, 22:49

Totally agree SoCal - it would be a stupid move. Although Cart use a gear lever. Is that sequential?

I just want rid of TC!!! :-x

**SoCalF1Fan** · 2nd November 2006, 23:12

Originally posted by SchumiForza
Totally agree SoCal - it would be a stupid move. Although Cart use a gear lever. Is that sequential?

I just want rid of TC!!! :-x

yeah they are sequential now.

**coysht** · 3rd November 2006, 09:02

Originally posted by SoCalF1Fan
the pinnacle of technology in motorsport and you want a standard H pattern?

maybe if they want back to a more 'standard sequential" (ie no paddles, just the single sequential gear selector like say rally cars...) in order for them to move thier hand off the sterring wheel in order to shift. But to go back to a clutch operated standard transimission, no way.

World Rally cars have paddles now.

**Tifoso** · 3rd November 2006, 16:30

I want them to have to take their hand off the steering wheel to shift

**SoCalF1Fan** · 3rd November 2006, 16:36

Originally posted by coysht
World Rally cars have paddles now.

wow, think the last rally i watched was a year or 2 ago. Progress cant be stopped i guess!

**SS454** · 3rd November 2006, 17:17

Originally posted by SoCalF1Fan
wow, think the last rally i watched was a year or 2 ago. Progress cant be stopped i guess!

WRC cars have had paddle shifts since around 2002.

**SoCalF1Fan** · 3rd November 2006, 18:26

Originally posted by SS454
WRC cars have had paddle shifts since around 2002.

You sure?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/140347...2_in_car_view/

**SS454** · 3rd November 2006, 19:09

Originally posted by SoCalF1Fan
You sure?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/140347...2_in_car_view/

Considering the very first car in the video had paddle shift, yes im sure

I think even in 01 peogeot had paddle shift. It might have been Skoda that actually introduced it (I dont recall). You can see cars like the Ford Focus still used the sequential **** (Ford's was mounted right by the wheel), and some of the lower cars didnt have paddles yet either. Now pretty much every WRC car has paddle shifts.

**MrMan** · 3rd November 2006, 19:13

Even if you go to sequential boxes where you have to take your hands off the wheel, it doesn't make that big of a diff cause all you do is lift for upshifts and at most blip but no clutch on the downshifts (or at least most sequential boxes are like this). Therefore you dont really accomplish much with this, and why not keep the semi-auto smg boxes so F1 can have the fastest gearchanges in the world?

No TC would be good, but the thing is, the same drivers who are at the front will still be at the front.

**Greig** · 3rd November 2006, 19:17

I think F1 needs to be the pinnacle of driving, and not technology, so get rid of all the aids and gizmo's and make them drive, and make them change gears manually

**SS454** · 3rd November 2006, 19:33

Just what F1 should be about... A stock Corvette giving it a run for its money. I doubt an F1 driver could last a single race shifting an H pattern box due to the G-forces.

**Greig** · 3rd November 2006, 19:41

Oh yeah really I doubt it too, not like they managed in the past, nope.....F1 needs to get back to racing, nothing inbetween, and if that means the cars are slower then so be it.

**coysht** · 3rd November 2006, 19:57

Originally posted by Greig
I think F1 needs to be the pinnacle of driving, and not technology, so get rid of all the aids and gizmo's and make them drive, and make them change gears manually

I agree to a point about stripping back the technology, but as long as lower formula and road cars have some of this stuff I think you need it on F1 cars for it to remain so atractive to drivers and manufacturers, otherwise they may as well compete elsewhere.

**SS454** · 3rd November 2006, 20:07

Originally posted by Greig
Oh yeah really I doubt it too, not like they managed in the past, nope.....F1 needs to get back to racing, nothing inbetween, and if that means the cars are slower then so be it.

Find me a car in 1950 that could pull 5g's through corners. A corner like the parabolica where they are sustaining over 3 g's, you cant expect them to shift 3 times or so through that corner. Plus that would upset the car so much it'd likely cause a LOT of accidents.

Id like to see less aids (ie the one TC). But i would hate it if F1 was among the slowest race cars on the planet. If you want low tech racing, ur gonna have to watch Nascar.

**Greig** · 3rd November 2006, 20:41

1950?

Try going back to early 90's, drivers doing manual changes....

How did Senna and co cope? deary me...

Your the one saying they have to go slow, not me, seems your getting mixed up again LOL, drivers can do manual changes with a stick right now, end off, might bring something back to driver skill tho cant have that can we...

Why would I need Nascar? and what makes you think low tech means low speed? how fast did they go in the 70's?

Most of F1's technology is in road cars now, so its not exotic anymore, its not something people dream about having, so F1 is no longer about that, is it....now it needs to go back to being the best 20 racing drivers on the planet.

**Tifoso** · 3rd November 2006, 20:45

Originally posted by Greig
I think F1 needs to be the pinnacle of driving, and not technology, so get rid of all the aids and gizmo's and make them drive, and make them change gears manually

Absolutely without question.

**SS454** · 3rd November 2006, 22:30

Originally posted by Greig
1950?

Try going back to early 90's, drivers doing manual changes....

How did Senna and co cope? deary me...

Your the one saying they have to go slow, not me, seems your getting mixed up again LOL, drivers can do manual changes with a stick right now, end off, might bring something back to driver skill tho cant have that can we...

Why would I need Nascar? and what makes you think low tech means low speed? how fast did they go in the 70's?

Most of F1's technology is in road cars now, so its not exotic anymore, its not something people dream about having, so F1 is no longer about that, is it....now it needs to go back to being the best 20 racing drivers on the planet.

The G forces 15 years ago were no where near the G forces there are now. I know Ferrari was the first to use paddle shifts in 1990, while other cars still used an H pattern crashbox, but I think by 92 or maybe 91 virtually all cars were at least to sequential trannies.

You bring back H-pattern shifters, and the engines will be very detuned to what there is now to support inprecision of those gear changes. Also much heavier and more power rubbing transmission internals.

I think the cars would have to slow down in the corners to make it more feasable, but thats not a concern for you, because I recall you wanting a huge elimination of downforce. Suddenly the cars are 10 seconds slower.

1970's F1 cars are slow by todays standards.

F1 was never 20 of the best drivers in the world. Id say F1 today has a wider range of talent on the grid than it ever had. Even the ride buying kids go through pretty significant steps to get towards F1. The various open wheel series is far better now than it ever was before.

I like having minimum driver aids, but i have no problem with paddle shifting in todays F1 cars. If you can find a way to make the racing better, the emphasis on drivers better, while keeping the cars the fastest road racing cars on the planet (by a good margin) as well as highest technology, Im all ears.

**Tifoso** · 3rd November 2006, 22:39

Originally posted by SS454

F1 was never 20 of the best drivers in the world. Id say F1 today has a wider range of talent on the grid than it ever had. Even the ride buying kids go through pretty significant steps to get towards F1. The various open wheel series is far better now than it ever was before.

I am not so sure. I wonder if Jeff Gordon's dad, or grandfather could have just jumped into an F1 car of his era and driven it very close to lap records?

I'd say no. All these driver aids allow pretty below average drivers (Ide, etc) to be at least somewhat competitive. It's an artificial comparison.

If removing all driver aids, most aero (think the late 60's F1 cars), TC. etc results in slower racing--so be it.

I would much rather watch a formula that had Villenueve-style passing (Sr, obviously), with modern safety measures, of course, than what we have now. If that means the cars are going closer to 150-60, than 200mph, then so be it. It will still seem fast. It's all relative.

**Greig** · 3rd November 2006, 23:29

Can you give me some G Force figures from say 1993 compared to 2006 then? now where did I say a huge reduction in downforce? really stop just making things up please, debate what I write not what you just make up pretty please?

Manual gear changing would give so much back to the drivers, I dont really care if it means 3 secs a lap slower, which I doubt anyway.

**SS454** · 4th November 2006, 00:44

I bet it would be more than 3 seconds a lap due to all the changes would be necessary.

Lateral G-force comes down to the speed through the corners, and todays cars are way faster through the corners than they ever were.

You said a long time ago about how you want the downforce cut to make passing. Not much I can do if you dont remember saying that, or if you changed ur mind now.

Tifoso, im not sure what your getting at with the Jeff Gordon comment. I still believe today's F1 has more talent through the entire grid than it was before. Perhaps you believe the likes Volker Weidler or Gabriele Tarquini were some of the best drivers in the world, I cant agree with that.

Its well known F1 was a rich series for rich boys that wanted to race. It still hasnt gotten away from that even, as look over the years how many rich kids got to drive because they brought money, or even 15-20 years ago when some rich guy would enter a slow team and have some rich, unqualified drivers step in to do laps. While I still dont think theres 20 of the best drivers in the world in F1, I think at least most of the young kids have a least a lot of experience in several forms of racing. Be it karting, Formula Renault, F3, F3000/GP2, A1GP, etc. I believe most of them are coming in reasonably qualified as a race driver, but just cant cut it against the 10 or 12 guys that deserve to be there.

Interestingly, Montoya was saying last weekend that F1 cars are hard to drive fast, even though its well known they are rather easy to drive in general. He said the balance in F1 cars are easy. While in Nascar its hard to find the balance, but its easy to drive fast. The best drivers still come out ontop regardless of aids, and while Id like to see TC gone completely, I do enjoy drivers somewhat close in competition, and not a handful of great drivers that can handle the most difficult cars, while the rest are .5-1.5 seconds slower.

Ever remember a time when half the field was seperated by just 1 second?

**Tifoso** · 4th November 2006, 00:55

Jeff Gordon tested a Williams (I believe) at Indy...climbed in to the car, and was amazingly quick.
My point is, I highly doubt a racer in another series could have gotten into an F1 car in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and even the 1990's and been almost instantly really quick.

**Greig** · 4th November 2006, 01:09

Lets just stick to this thread, never mind making up what you think I might have said, ok

So no GForce figures to compare then?

F1 was the pinnacle to motorsports for cars and drivers in the 70's/80's early 90's maybe you just get used to the dross that is modern F1, but watch some racing from back then and tell me what we have today is better

its not even close. If your happy to see F1 die then that's fine with me, personally I would rather see the drivers matter more now, as F1 has a lot of competition, and its not marketed as the fastest racing series, dont matter if its the fastest or not, viewers want to see racing, not speed traps numbers.

**SS454** · 4th November 2006, 01:26

I very much think drivers could hop in cars in the 50s and 60s and be pretty damn quick, just nothing compared to the top drivers. Because thats what a lot of the drivers were, just regular guys with a car. Then there were the drivers that were actually really good, and they smoked everyone. But I think Jeff Gordon doing a good job showed that he has skills, but really he wasnt setting any records that day. Easy to drive, hard to drive fast.

Greig, your actually making stuff up. I never said today's F1 was better, but I dont think making the cars slow like the 70s cars (because you'll never get that era back) is going to solve anything in todays F1. Like I said if you want good slow racing, watch something like F3, or Nascar. If the cars arent fast, there's no interest. I want good racing, with the fastest cars on the planet. But theres no good solutions to that. The fantasy of putting unrealistic ideas into play doesnt work.

**MrMan** · 4th November 2006, 07:51

Greig, just for you baby: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/5064566.stm

At Copse that means an increase of 12mph in the middle of the corner - a significant amount when the laws of physics dictate that the energy of an impact is a square of the velocity at which it happens.

The way this works is each corner has a 'radius' if you will because it is a curve. For this example we'll say it's a simple 90* corner with a constant radius to approximate.

Let omega = d(theta)/dt where theta is the angle of the corner. Omega is the angular velocity or the speed at which the angle of the corner changes. In real world terms, the higher the angular velocity, the quicker the object (F1 car) changes direction around the radius. Let's say you're going 12mph faster in a corner, that means if you find the numbers you're having that much higher angular velocity.

If we take the derivative of the angular velocity, we'll get the angular acceleration alpha = d(omega)/dt. This can then be converted to G's (1-g is about 9.8m/s^2) and you divide alpha by 9.8 to find how many g's the car is going thru that corner.

So if you are going through a corner at a higher velocity, that means you're 'accelerating' quicker through the corner, because acceleration is defined as a change in velocity and velocity has both magnitude (speed) and direction (radius). In real life terms this means if you go through a corner faster, you have have higher lateral g's. We know in 2006 the cars were cornering at nearly unbelievable speeds compared to 10 or 15 years ago, let alone before that.

All you have to do is look at Senna's famous lap of Suzuka and compare it to Massa's pole lap this year, it's incredible to see how much faster the 06 cars are through the corners. It almost looks like it's on fast foward compared to Senna's lap.

**Greig** · 4th November 2006, 09:50

Again SS454 I never said I WANT slow racing, again your just making things up, but as usual its a battle to debate anything with you, I give up

What YOU want is not what I want, or what everyone wants, ok and the fantasy of you making up what I said does not make you right either

so sad when you can't debate F1 with F1 fans without it being like this, but as I said I give up.

Originally posted by Greig
I dont really care if it means 3 secs a lap slower, which I doubt anyway.

Quoted for you, IF IT MEANS, not it will mean, not I want it to mean, but IF IT means, can you grasp English?

MrMan, well thats just great, now figures from say 1990? otherwise they aint comparing to nothing. And it still dont mean a modern driver would be unable to change gears with a stick, I dont recall much gear changes mid corner, your in gear before the corner, why would it be so hard as SS454 seems to think?

**SS454** · 4th November 2006, 16:33

I never said you want slow racing, I said (and you said), you want devices that force slow racing. So if you want a car that cant go fast, then maybe you do want slow racing. I dont know. Figure that one out.

You said you doubt it would mean 3 seconds slower, and I think it would be more than 3 seconds slower.

I guess you seem to not think of the parabolica where you go through 3 gear changes in 1 high load corner. Or how about the big right hander in Spain? Everyone wants slow low tech F1 cars hey? Rigghhhtt

**Greig** · 4th November 2006, 16:54

Originally posted by SS454
I never said you want slow racing, I said (and you said), you want devices that force slow racing. So if you want a car that cant go fast, then maybe you do want slow racing. I dont know. Figure that one out.

You said you doubt it would mean 3 seconds slower, and I think it would be more than 3 seconds slower.

I guess you seem to not think of the parabolica where you go through 3 gear changes in 1 high load corner. Or how about the big right hander in Spain? Everyone wants slow low tech F1 cars hey? Rigghhhtt

Your the ONLY one saying less devices mean slower cars, which you cant seem to back up, so dont try and turn my opinion into something it aint thats quite pathetic, but not uncommon with you it seems, make things up then believe it...

How on earth would a manual gear shifter cost cars 3 seconds a lap? come on tell us, no wait you say more, so come on whats your basis to suggest it, none, just like your GFORCE figures, make a comment you cant back up. Who said everyone wants slow speed F1 cars? AGAIN YOUR THE ONE SAYING THEY WILL BE SLOW, are you just acting dense or genuinely a bit slow?

Tell me how Gilles, Senna and co got around Parabolica, did they get out and push? thick or what....Its 1 shift on the exit of the corner, where on earth do you get 3 shifts in one corner from?

FANTASY

come back to me with real facts if your going to act the fool, and please stop twisting things I never said into your sad little game....

**SS454** · 4th November 2006, 17:15

Continue your personal attacks. Very classy. I love how your own rules dont apply to you.

I never said your goal was to have slow cars, Im saying is your ideas "to make F1 better" inevitably slow down the cars A LOT! Its an unavoidable issue. You want cars built like the 1989 cars, if not the 70s cars because you mention them a lot too. I think perhaps you even said you wanted steel brakes back. You support all your ideas with "if that means the cars are slower then so be it.". In the world of reality, that means you want F1 cars that are unavoidably slow, but has good racing. Since thats not a realistic option with today's F1 cars, I suggested perhaps you should go watch F3 or Nascar since it fits your criteria better.

I already explained why manual gear shifts would slow the cars down a lot.

I guess you need to be somewhat intelligent to realise going faster through corners is an increase in G-forces. MrMan tried to give you a physics lesson, but you blew that off.

Enough of this, you can have your fantasy of F1 cars being better with H pattern gearshifts, and I can not like the idea and be happy it will never happen. It was freakin cool way back when, but it just doesnt fit in now.