Hungarian GP Debrief: Hamilton Snatches Championship Lead in Budapest

[Chris]

bring back ground effect and mechanical grip as a factor over pass spoiling aero.

The dirty air issue isn't so much to do with the lack of ground effect, it's more to do with the pure complexity of the front wings of the current cars. They're works of art, really. But they do not help the racing.

You could theoretically save a huge amount of money and get better racing by enforcing more simplistic front wing designs rather than overhauling the cars to utilise the ground effect. Just look at GP2. They produce a lot of downforce via their wings, but it's a series that generally produces more exciting racing than F1 because their aero kits aren't so reliant on clean air (aside from the fact that it's a spec-series, of course).

Until then F1's best is barely measurable next to an average Indy road race or pretty much any respected endurance race.

Personally I don't agree with that. I find IndyCar incredibly boring, and the WEC is only mildly exciting. I LOVE the idea of the WEC, but very rarely is it as exciting as a Formula One race, to me at least. Don't get me wrong, I love the WEC, but I just don't think it's as exciting or visceral as Formula One.

Having said all that, people tend to view the past with rose tinted glasses. But if you actually go back and watch a race from say the 1980's, you'd practically fall asleep, the racing was so boring. Heck, even in the V10 era was mostly a snooze-fest. Sure the cars looked and sounded great, but there was hardly any overtaking or anything. If there's one thing to be said about the Pirelli-era is that it has given us some fantastically exciting races (and some not-so much of course).

 

[P*Funk]

Well its hard to figure out exactly what it is then that makes F1 so great if for most of its recorded history its considered boring compared to the most recent years. At a certain point asserting the rose coloured glasses argument so strongly starts to look paradoxical.

I just don't know. I think the F1 myth sustains it. I think F1 has contemporary rose coloured glasses. Everyone says the new are the hardest ever to drive but then the drivers don't even know how to operate them without radio assist whereas Indy cars are hard to drive because they don't have power steering which to me is literally visceral.

 

[Chris]

Modern day F1 racing is more exciting than the early-era stuff. That's not to say that the racing in the 70's, 80's and 90's wasn't good, it's just that as the years go on the competition tends to get closer and closer.

Back in the 70's and 80's you'd have the top cars lapping everyone but their team mates and winning by several minutes. Not to mention the cars nowadays are more reliable.

 

[Deleted member 130869]

There was more variety in results thanks to diverse race tracks on the schedule, more freedom of manufacturing options and parts, and technology wasn't so advanced that everyone used the same stuff that rarely fails. So we would see wins by 20s or 30s but it wasn't a certainty.

I rather have mechanical grip being the main factor over aerodynamic advantages. We only get overtaking if cars have to really slow down for corners and that won't ever be the case with the supremely intricate wings, and absurdly sensational brake discs.

 

[burrito]

I still can't understand why F1 won't go back to ground effect. It was dangerous because the car's suspension couldn't control the attitude of the car. But a few years later they invented the solution, active suspension. But the FIA banned it.

Now 25 years later we have cars with massively over complex wings and power units created to push efficient power technology. But yet, we are seeing more and more supercars and sports cars with active suspension elements but the FIA stand firm.

F1 has already embraced the supposed future of power creation. Why has it not embraced the future of suspension and the gains in diffuser downforce to replace these overly complex wings.

That and some proper tyres (bigger and without artificial degradation) might go a little way to improving the action.

 

[gamer19]

You could theoretically save a huge amount of money and get better racing by enforcing more simplistic front wing designs rather than overhauling the cars to utilise the ground effect. Just look at GP2. They produce a lot of downforce via their wings, but it's a series that generally produces more exciting racing than F1 because their aero kits aren't so reliant on clean air (aside from the fact that it's a spec-series, of course...

Exactly my point.

Modern day F1 racing is more exciting than the early-era stuff. That's not to say that the racing in the 70's, 80's and 90's wasn't good, it's just that as the years go on the competition tends to get closer and closer.
Back in the 70's and 80's you'd have the top cars lapping everyone but their team mates and winning by several minutes. Not to mention the cars nowadays are more reliable.

Again, 100% agree with you.
We're just too spoiled now. Reminds me kind of gaming you know... I used to spend 92% (couldn't go to 100, my mum didn't let me) of my free time on, by today's standard, neither good looking neither realistic simulation game called Grand Prix 2. Now I have rF2, rF, F12015, F12014, Automobilista, GSCE, Assetto Corsa, Project Cars, DiRT, WRC4, R.Burns Rally, GTR2, GT Legends, Race07, MotoGP16 and some I can't remember now but... it's not "as it used to be". But I actually know ...it's me.

 

[fortyfivekev]

I completely agree with you that we should not be seeing drivers unable to attack because they fear their tyres will go off, but are you really saying that Pirelli don't know how to make tyres that last?...

It's down to Pirelli how they deliver what the FIA/teams want. I am guessing that no-one at the FIA asked for tyres that cannot be raced hard. If they did then they should be fired.

There is obviously an element of "rose tinted specs" about looking back in time but it isn't just that. I think people respected the drivers more back then because they were risk takers and because of that they tended to have more interesting characters. Unless today's F1 driver is very unlucky (RIP Jules) they are taking about the same risk as a train driver and what's cool about that. I don't want to return to those dangerous days but I think that is a lot of the reason why people romaticise the old days.

The cars today are also much easier to drive. You don't need to be a hero to drive a car with a flappy paddle gear change and power steering. Like it or not those stories about the Sennas of this world finishing Monaco with worn out gloves and blistered hands made them heroes. Can you imagine today's drivers doing anything like that?

 

[gamer19]

I was just thinking... Red Bull doesn't actually "give you the wings". It takes them off.

But then I remember Russian GP and I'm not sure what to think after all.
Eh... love is two way street as they say I guess.

 

[LacSlyer]

The cars today are also much easier to drive. You don't need to be a hero to drive a car with a flappy paddle gear change and power steering. Like it or not those stories about the Sennas of this world finishing Monaco with worn out gloves and blistered hands made them heroes. Can you imagine today's drivers doing anything like that?

I don't think that's a fair assessment to be honest, and it's such a widely accepted opinion while overlooking the obvious. I mean, how many races ago was it that Hamilton had issues with his car that came down to him not knowing the settings of the car? That alone says it all when one of the top drivers in the sport has issues remembering the 50 something settings for the car. There's far more complexity to these cars than people give credit for, and comparing them to cars of the past based upon the shifting mechanisms alone is ignorant, no offense.

 

[fortyfivekev]

I don't think that's a fair assessment to be honest, and it's such a widely accepted opinion while overlooking the obvious. I mean, how many races ago was it that Hamilton had issues with his car that came down to him not knowing the settings of the car? That alone says it all when one of the top drivers in the sport has issues remembering the 50 something settings for the car. There's far more complexity to these cars than people give credit for, and comparing them to cars of the past based upon the shifting mechanisms alone is ignorant, no offense.

Fairly obvious that I was referring to how physically difficult the cars are to drive. In any case I think drivers back in the day had things like managing turbo boost to worry about and had to make it to the finish with just a pit board for assistance so I'm not too sure I am the ignorant one.

 

[LacSlyer]

Fairly obvious that I was referring to how physically difficult the cars are to drive. In any case I think drivers back in the day had things like managing turbo boost to worry about and had to make it to the finish with just a pit board for assistance so I'm not too sure I am the ignorant one.

Apologies, but I don't think it was fairly obvious that you were referring to the physical exertion required. With that, while that may be true, it could be very easily argued that the physical requirements for the drivers is at a much higher standard now than in the past, regardless of whether or not the physical exertion is equal, less or more.

My point being is that far too many people make the claims that the current F1 cars are too easy to drive, and much easier than in the past while overlooking the obvious changes to the sport that may not require as much physical effort but more mental effort, for instance. When you make such a claim while only mentioning something like the shifting mechanisms you may understand how it comes off and why I initially responded.