Has Motorsport Become Underpowered?

[D-Type]

It's a complicated issue. Effectively "underpowered" means too much grip and too little power. But what can be done?

Although not generally admitted I think the prime concern of the FIA and the race organisers is a car leaving the circuit and going into the crowd (although some years ago, Le Mans 1955 and Monza 1961 come to mind). And of course driver fatalities.

You can provide barriers, debris fencing and run off areas but the prime concern is cornering speeds. Remember that the kinetic energy rises with the square of the speed - twice the speed means four times the energy while a 10% increase means a 20% increase in energy. Barriers must not only be made stronger, they also have to absorb energy progressively to limit the loads on the unfortunate driver and the width of run off areas also goes up with the square of the speed.

So how can we reduce cornering speeds -or at least keep them down? Reducing power reduces the entry speed and hence the cornering speed but also reduces the spectacle. Reducing grip, either aerodynamic or mechanical, also works but arguably increases the chance of a car going off. I doubt it does really as no driver wants to go over the limit.

I think the answer is to do both, but do it in such a way that there is more of an excess of power over grip than at present. Reducing power is easy - restrict the air inflow (NASCAR style) or reduce engine size. But this can lead to less safe racing as it is more difficult to overtake. That's one reason why the 1961-65 period produced more fatalities than immediately previously. Reducing aerodynamic grip means: (a) eliminating ground effect by increased ground clearance and flat bottoms, (b) limiting wings by size and even a spec profile (Indycar-style), (c) restricting diffusers etc which acn only be done by dimensional restrictions - but this turns into a contest between designers stretching the rules and rule makers reacting by tightening them. To reduce grip by mechanical means: (a) limit the track, (b) restrict tyre width, (c) introduce tyre regulations that effectively require tyres to last the race. The last is easier said than done: ban tyre changes except in an emergency (but how can you define or enforce it), slow up tyre changes by banning power tools and requiring five wheel nuts (a bit artificial).

Average speeds and maximum speeds will fall. But does this really matter? Could you see the difference between a bunch of cars doing 200mph and a bunch doing 150mph? Admittedly there is a psychological barrier to be cleared: for example in the US the lower average speeds of F1 cars on street circuits compared to the NASCAR taxicabs on the high banked ovals remains a problem sellling it to the casual fan. If we can reduce the grip/power ratio to former levels the spectacle will improve - cornering will become hairier and the difference between the "ace" drivers and the "journeyman" drivers will be more significant and apparent to the casual fan. Racing will be more entertaining to watch. [British] touring cars and the likes of Formula Ford can be entertaining at far lower speeds than today's F1 cars. Yes, racing is about speed but absolute speed is only a number. With less induced aerodynamic instability overtaking will be easier and there will be less need for pit stops "to liven it up".

Sorry for the long post, but it is a complex issue with no easy answer - if there were, it would have been introduced.

[FAL]

[quote="navigator"]On the rallying front I think the cars are fast enough. The sport is spectacular and we are not having the tragical accidents of the group 2 era.
/QUOTE]

Perhaps you really meant to write something other than Group 2? I consider what might be described as the Gp2 era to have been the best one. Certainly no major track record for injury/fatal accidents. By far the best regulations for most of the period - reasonable production quantities for the basic car, modifications that were broadly in line with what the non-International competitors were already doing to their cars (thus allowing true club level drivers to enter Internationals with few changes) body strengthening allowed (unlike the over-hyped Gp1 which, for that reason alone, was never as cheap as claimed) etc.

[steveaki13]

We certainly dont see the 20,000+ RPM that BMW and others were reaching in the early 2000's thanks to the limiting of revs. It was more impressive back then. But at a cost of the amount of engine failures. At least costs are down now.

[rjbetty]

We certainly dont see the 20,000+ RPM that BMW and others were reaching in the early 2000's thanks to the limiting of revs. It was more impressive back then. But at a cost of the amount of engine failures. At least costs are down now.

So miss the V10 days. I never realised how much so till I saw some old youtube vids. I'd totally forgotten how accustomed I was to that amazing sound. I started getting into F1 around 1997 (a very 2012 like season with pretty much every team being competitive and having moments to shine) and without realising it, that noise was part of the appeal that planted that passion in me.

The other thing I really miss about the high revs is that you would actually get retirements. The recent Valencia GP was like a real throwback to the olden days. For me, the whole not knowing if cars will retire from top positions was one of the major factors of the appeal and drama of F1 for me and added a whole new dimension to the story of a race. It is with horror that I now behold an era when a team suffering 2 or 3 mechanical failures a season is considered unreliable! But I agree at least the costs are now more managable and the engines are more evenly matched making performances closer and more competitive.

[steveaki13]

So miss the V10 days. I never realised how much so till I saw some old youtube vids. I'd totally forgotten how accustomed I was to that amazing sound. I started getting into F1 around 1997 (a very 2012 like season with pretty much every team being competitive and having moments to shine) and without realising it, that noise was part of the appeal that planted that passion in me.

The other thing I really miss about the high revs is that you would actually get retirements. The recent Valencia GP was like a real throwback to the olden days. For me, the whole not knowing if cars will retire from top positions was one of the major factors of the appeal and drama of F1 for me and added a whole new dimension to the story of a race. It is with horror that I now behold an era when a team suffering 2 or 3 mechanical failures a season is considered unreliable! But I agree at least the costs are now more managable and the engines are more evenly matched making performances closer and more competitive.

We might be in a small number but I agree.

I think the unpredicatbility of F1 in days past was more exciting. When some weeks you had a race where the tops cars raced hard to the flag, then the next week a race where 10+ cars retired and smaller teams could score points.

Remember Minardi scoring points when only those top 6 scored points. Now Caterham, Marussia & HRT dont get anywhere near a point even with 10 people getting points.

Those were the days.

[rjbetty]

We might be in a small number but I agree.

I think the unpredicatbility of F1 in days past was more exciting. When some weeks you had a race where the tops cars raced hard to the flag, then the next week a race where 10+ cars retired and smaller teams could score points.

Remember Minardi scoring points when only those top 6 scored points. Now Caterham, Marussia & HRT dont get anywhere near a point even with 10 people getting points.

Those were the days.

Those were.

[wedge]

As Will Power said recently, the cars need more horsepower. IMO, that would better separate the "real" drivers from the pretenders, who need the cars to be stuck to the pavement.

Look at Texas. Who needs HP when you can take DF off to sort the men from the boys.

I'm OK with the horsepower that NASCAR and ALMS have. They could have more, but at least there (in GT, at least), the horsepower restrictions don't seem to be dumbing down the racing as much as in Indy Car.

Hmm, I don't know. I'm not too sure. The performance equalization can produce restrictor plate style pack racing in GTs. Early part of Le Mans, race tracks with long straights. I'm in two minds but it feels like a novelty: close racing for the sake of close racing.

In LMP cutting HP has created a problem. HP means nothing and so minimising the time loss in traffic is everything. They say GTs can do similar corner speeds to the LMPs.

[slorydn1]

It's a complicated issue. Effectively "underpowered" means too much grip and too little power. But what can be done?


Average speeds and maximum speeds will fall. But does this really matter? Could you see the difference between a bunch of cars doing 200mph and a bunch doing 150mph? Admittedly there is a psychological barrier to be cleared: for example in the US the lower average speeds of F1 cars on street circuits compared to the NASCAR taxicabs on the high banked ovals remains a problem sellling it to the casual fan. If we can reduce the grip/power ratio to former levels the spectacle will improve - cornering will become hairier and the difference between the "ace" drivers and the "journeyman" drivers will be more significant and apparent to the casual fan. Racing will be more entertaining to watch. [British] touring cars and the likes of Formula Ford can be entertaining at far lower speeds than today's F1 cars. Yes, racing is about speed but absolute speed is only a number. With less induced aerodynamic instability overtaking will be easier and there will be less need for pit stops "to liven it up".

You bring up a very interesting point there.

In the US, when the media shows the qualifying order for a race, they show the driver's avg speed for the lap. Matt Kenseth sat on the pole at Daytona this past weekend, his lap is listed as 192.386 mph, not the 46.781 seconds it took him to cover the 2.5 mile lap.

In F1 (well really most forms of international motorsport) they say that Fernando Alonzo sat on the pole with a time of 1:51.746, not the 189.784 KPH he averaged over the 5.891km lap at Silverstone ( or 117.910 mph over the 3.66 mile road course for us Americans who don't understand metric-in the rain no less!)...to be more fair Alonzo's 2010 track record lap is 1:30.874 (233.374kph or 144.995 mph)

For us it has always been "How fast will it run?" and for the rest of the world it seems the question is more like "How quick can it get there?"

So yes, 192.386 mph sounds more impressive than 144.995 mph-until one considers that an F1 car would be circling Daytona International Speedway at 230+mph and a Sprint Cup Car might lap Silverstone at maybe 115 mph on a dry day, and 0 mph on a wet day.

[wedge]

You bring up a very interesting point there.

In the US, when the media shows the qualifying order for a race, they show the driver's avg speed for the lap. Matt Kenseth sat on the pole at Daytona this past weekend, his lap is listed as 192.386 mph, not the 46.781 seconds it took him to cover the 2.5 mile lap.

Would it be because the US had an emphasis on speed trials whereas Europeans moved into time trials post war?

[BDunnell]

Would it be because the US had an emphasis on speed trials whereas Europeans moved into time trials post war?

I too would be most interested in a perspective on this. A shame Don Capps doesn't seem to be around at present to offer one.