Unpopular F1 opinions

[UncreativeUsername37]

The thing with hockenheim is that the fans hated it because it was to long but nobody complains that spa is to long

The difference is that Hockenheim is that old Hockenheim was a simple straight-chicane-straight, while Spa has lots of exciting corners (Eau Rouge, Pouhon, Blanchimont). And also, Spa usually produces interesting races, while the old Hockenheimring didn't.

But I still prefer the old Hockenheimring to the new. I miss the cars running through the forest with 350 km/h.

Imagine one of the mid-2000s cars there with DRS, KERS, and a missing front wing....

[roblo97]

The thing with hockenheim is that the fans hated it because it was to long but nobody complains that spa is to long

The difference is that Hockenheim is that old Hockenheim was a simple straight-chicane-straight, while Spa has lots of exciting corners (Eau Rouge, Pouhon, Blanchimont). And also, Spa usually produces interesting races, while the old Hockenheimring didn't.

But I still prefer the old Hockenheimring to the new. I miss the cars running through the forest with 350 km/h.

Imagine one of the mid-2000s cars there with DRS, KERS, and a missing front wing....

This is what was proposed in 1982

[Aerospeed]

One does not need to make an already long circuit even longer...

[mario]

The thing with hockenheim is that the fans hated it because it was to long but nobody complains that spa is to long

The difference is that Hockenheim is that old Hockenheim was a simple straight-chicane-straight, while Spa has lots of exciting corners (Eau Rouge, Pouhon, Blanchimont). And also, Spa usually produces interesting races, while the old Hockenheimring didn't.

But I still prefer the old Hockenheimring to the new. I miss the cars running through the forest with 350 km/h.

I think we all miss the old Hockenheimring. Safety made this happen as did government mandates.

Safety was an issue because considerable length of the circuit proved to be problematic for the medical crews - if there was a major accident at the far end of the circuit, then the time that it would take for the medical car to get to the site of the accident raises the risk of complications considerably, not to mention if marshals or other staff were required.

[Salamander]

Alright, let me float this one out there; safety aside, the 70s were better than the 80s.

[Onxy Wrecked]

Alright, let me float this one out there; safety aside, the 70s were better than the 80s.

I would agree with that fully with F1 being better in the 1970s, as the Indy Car ranks got better in the 1980s and early 1990s due to the aging or rejectful F1 drivers who saw the big payout for the Indy 500 (Cogan, Sullivan, Rahal, Fittipaldi, and Cheever) not to mention the venerable Mario Andretti who retired from F1 for good at this time to race in the US.

[shinji]

Alright, let me float this one out there; safety aside, the 70s were better than the 80s.

I would agree with that fully with F1 being better in the 1970s, as the Indy Car ranks got better in the 1980s and early 1990s due to the aging or rejectful F1 drivers who saw the big payout for the Indy 500 (Cogan, Sullivan, Rahal, Fittipaldi, and Cheever) not to mention the venerable Mario Andretti who retired from F1 for good at this time to race in the US.

Do you ever post about F1?

[roblo97]

Alright, let me float this one out there; safety aside, the 70s were better than the 80s.

The tracks were better and the drivers were better and there were so many technical innovations in that decade


Now for mine the dallara dw12 looks way better than a formula 1 car

[pasta_maldonado]

Alright, let me float this one out there; safety aside, the 70s were better than the 80s.

The tracks were better and the drivers were better and there were so many technical innovations in that decade


Now for mine the dallara dw12 looks way better than a formula 1 car

No way, matey. This years McLaren is a thing of beauty, whereas the Dallara is the car equivalent of Katie Price with those horrendously large flares

[roblo97]

Alright, let me float this one out there; safety aside, the 70s were better than the 80s.

The tracks were better and the drivers were better and there were so many technical innovations in that decade


Now for mine the dallara dw12 looks way better than a formula 1 car

No way, matey. This years McLaren is a thing of beauty, whereas the Dallara is the car equivalent of Katie Price with those horrendously large flares

In oval trim the car looks better than the f1 cars of this season because f1 could learn a lot from the low drag configuration because less aerodynamic drag = higher top speed and better looks and when one considers the fact the indycars produce roughly the same amount of power as f1 cars do (750vs700) from smaller engines, it looks like a win win situation for indycar
Please note this is my first post this year and I've just had a shot glass of champagne and chambord and it was shite

[dr-baker]

Now for mine the dallara dw12 looks way better than a formula 1 car

No way, matey. This years McLaren is a thing of beauty, whereas the Dallara is the car equivalent of Katie Price with those horrendously large flares

And the DeltaWing is the best-looking of the lot...

[Ataxia]

Now for mine the dallara dw12 looks way better than a formula 1 car

No way, matey. This years McLaren is a thing of beauty, whereas the Dallara is the car equivalent of Katie Price with those horrendously large flares

In oval trim the car looks better than the f1 cars of this season because f1 could learn a lot from the low drag configuration because less aerodynamic drag = higher top speed and better looks and when one considers the fact the indycars produce roughly the same amount of power as f1 cars do (750vs700) from smaller engines, it looks like a win win situation for indycar
Please note this is my first post this year and I've just had a shot glass of champagne and chambord and it was shite

You can't just make an F1 car low drag. There's an obvious reason why cars don't go around Monaco with Monza-spec wings...

Indycars are primarily designed for ovals. F1 cars are designed for technical circuits where downforce isn't just desirable; it's a necessity. Personally, I don't like the DW12 either; it looks like the bastard lovechild of a Tyrrell 020 and Susan Boyle...

[mario]

Alright, let me float this one out there; safety aside, the 70s were better than the 80s.

In terms of experimentation with design, yes and no - we saw some very interesting experimental designs, mainly centred around aerodynamics, from the Lotus 72 kickstarting the shift from the cigar bodied cars of the 1960's to the more modern designs we see today.
We also saw some unusual concepts - some, like the Lotus 56B, were utter disasters (Fittipaldi later said that he thought that it was a miracle that he wasn't killed whilst driving that car), but some, like the Lotus 78 and 79, did change the sport radically. Other, smaller, changes also shaped the sport - the introduction of slick tyres, carbon brake disks, even a few tentative steps towards modern semi-automatic transmissions (the electronically activated clutch of the Lotus 76, and a test hack 312T3 that Ferrari used in 1979 for tyre testing had a push button gear changing system that is not that far removed from what Ferrari used a decade later).

Ironically, in some ways it was also a decade of increasing standardisation in other areas - Cosworth DFV engine, Hewland transmission, Borg & Beck clutch, Girling disks in the early part of the decade and Lockheed disks at the end of it, Lucas electronics and fuel injection systems, Goodyear tyres - all effectively became standardised parts for the bulk of the field by the middle of that era, such that it is not accidental that it became known as the "kit car" era. In effect, it represented the transition period from the semi-professional era of the 1960's to the increasingly professional era of the 1980's, as it was the end of the 1970's that saw a major surge in money into the sport, and with it the expectation of a more professional attitude.

In oval trim the car looks better than the f1 cars of this season because f1 could learn a lot from the low drag configuration because less aerodynamic drag = higher top speed and better looks and when one considers the fact the indycars produce roughly the same amount of power as f1 cars do (750vs700) from smaller engines, it looks like a win win situation for indycar
Please note this is my first post this year and I've just had a shot glass of champagne and chambord and it was shite

You're comparing two very different situations though - around a typical road circuit, where you are continually accelerating and decelerating your car, the greatest potential area for time gains will be through the corners, where additional downforce will help you considerably (not just through the corner, but also on turn in, since the car will be more stable under braking, and on the exit, where you want to reach maximum possible traction as soon as possible).
There have actually been fairly few occasions this season where the fastest driver in the speed traps has also been the fastest driver overall - more often than not, the Mercedes, Sauber and Toro Rosso teams would be the fastest through the speed traps, but, especially towards the tail end of the season, those teams were certainly not the most competitive.

All in all, there is very little point in going for the maximum straight line speed since the straights of most circuits make up a very limited proportion of the circuit - maybe a few seconds of full throttle at a venue where the lap times tend to be closer to eighty or ninety seconds before a corner comes up and you need to slow down again. If you are going to generally be traction limited around most of the circuit, it is better to bias your set up slightly that way and compromise on straight line speed rather than the other way around.

By comparison, around an oval circuit the driver is rarely going to be traction limited when it comes to applying the power, is only going to be occasionally braking and will be spending most of his time close to or at maximum speed. With the straights making up significantly more of the track, not to mention the fact that you are generally drag rather than traction limited, then there is less of a need for downforce and a greater need for straight line speed - which is essentially the opposite of what would be best around your typical F1 circuit. If you compare the road course package that Indycar uses for road courses compared to oval circuits, that difference in requirements becomes quite apparent.

[Gerudo Dragon]

Hermann Tilke isn't Satan.

[pi314159]

Hermann Tilke isn't Satan.

He obviously isn't. He has also designed some pretty good tracks (Sepang, Istanbul, Austin). Some tracks might be rubbish, but that's also due to the FIA regulations and the chosen location.

What I don't like about Tilke's tracks is that they are all too similar. Not every circuit needs an arena section. You don't always need a long straight followed by a hairpin. I don't like that modern circuits always look like parking lots with a track painted onto them, but I blame the FIA, not only Tilke.

But I think F1 needs more different Track designers. I don't have a problem with 5 Tilke tracks on the calendar, but with 10 of them, the Tracks become somehow monotonous.

[JJMonty]

I'll chuck in one and see if my head gets bitten off....


Spa has had it's soul ripped out thanks to Tilke + FIA. The 2007 (current) layout lacks the challenge the circuit used to have with Eau Rouge now being a flat out "corner" with tarmac run off roads helping to punish the drivers into losing a couple of seconds instead of a gravel trap/wall that would see your race finish. Bus-Stop isn't a chicane anymore, but two clumsey hairpins with a horrible/narrow pit entry. Grand Prixs have become rather dull and had DRS not been brought in, then we would have had more processional races with a lack of overtaking (unless the rain made an appearance).


*Runs and hides*

[mario]

I'll chuck in one and see if my head gets bitten off....


Spa has had it's soul ripped out thanks to Tilke + FIA. The 2007 (current) layout lacks the challenge the circuit used to have with Eau Rouge now being a flat out "corner" with tarmac run off roads helping to punish the drivers into losing a couple of seconds instead of a gravel trap/wall that would see your race finish. Bus-Stop isn't a chicane anymore, but two clumsey hairpins with a horrible/narrow pit entry. Grand Prixs have become rather dull and had DRS not been brought in, then we would have had more processional races with a lack of overtaking (unless the rain made an appearance).


*Runs and hides*

To be honest, Eau Rouge is more of a symbolic corner than anything else since the challenge has long disappeared from that corner - it's been flat out for a long, long time now (some drivers were already flat out through Eau Rouge by the late 1980's), and most of the drivers have said that Pouhon has been the far bigger challenge around Spa (since that is almost, but not quite, a flat out corner).

As for the question of the track producing somewhat processional races when the conditions are dry, that is in part because there aren't actually that many places where you could feasibly pass another car - with most of the corners close to being flat out (the drivers spend over 70% of the time on full throttle), positioning your car anywhere else but the optimal racing line compromises you significantly and makes it difficult to pass into most corners.
There are only three major braking zones (which is why Brembo reckons that it is the circuit with the lowest brake wear on the entire calendar), and La Source is difficult to pass into simply because the length of the straight approaching that corner is so short, which means that the braking zone is not especially large. That only really leaves Les Combes and what was the former Bus Stop Chicane, and even then they are not especially easy to make a pass into since both of those corners have high speed corners before them, so the car behind tends to drop back slightly due to the effects of turbulence. From the point of view of a driver, therefore, it is an enjoyable circuit, but from the point of view of a spectator the spectacle may be less enthralling.

[JJMonty]

I'll chuck in one and see if my head gets bitten off....


Spa has had it's soul ripped out thanks to Tilke + FIA. The 2007 (current) layout lacks the challenge the circuit used to have with Eau Rouge now being a flat out "corner" with tarmac run off roads helping to punish the drivers into losing a couple of seconds instead of a gravel trap/wall that would see your race finish. Bus-Stop isn't a chicane anymore, but two clumsey hairpins with a horrible/narrow pit entry. Grand Prixs have become rather dull and had DRS not been brought in, then we would have had more processional races with a lack of overtaking (unless the rain made an appearance).


*Runs and hides*

To be honest, Eau Rouge is more of a symbolic corner than anything else since the challenge has long disappeared from that corner - it's been flat out for a long, long time now (some drivers were already flat out through Eau Rouge by the late 1980's), and most of the drivers have said that Pouhon has been the far bigger challenge around Spa (since that is almost, but not quite, a flat out corner).

As for the question of the track producing somewhat processional races when the conditions are dry, that is in part because there aren't actually that many places where you could feasibly pass another car - with most of the corners close to being flat out (the drivers spend over 70% of the time on full throttle), positioning your car anywhere else but the optimal racing line compromises you significantly and makes it difficult to pass into most corners.
There are only three major braking zones (which is why Brembo reckons that it is the circuit with the lowest brake wear on the entire calendar), and La Source is difficult to pass into simply because the length of the straight approaching that corner is so short, which means that the braking zone is not especially large. That only really leaves Les Combes and what was the former Bus Stop Chicane, and even then they are not especially easy to make a pass into since both of those corners have high speed corners before them, so the car behind tends to drop back slightly due to the effects of turbulence. From the point of view of a driver, therefore, it is an enjoyable circuit, but from the point of view of a spectator the spectacle may be less enthralling.

Ah, but the circuit was more challenging in the past. Even up to the turn of the centuary. Mainly because the circuit was still being run on public roads... that meant bumps, grass and a green circuit. It did make the races more exciting because a bumpy eau rouge could only be taken flat out if you had the "balls" to do so. It was possible to take it flat out from the dates you've mentioned but with great difficulty - look at images and you will see the cars bottoming out and the cars skitting across the circuit (look at JV's crashes of 1998 - 1999 of what happens when taking it flat out doesn't work). Once it became a perminant circuit, the surface was smoothed down and the run offs turned to tarmac. It removed the punishments that drivers would recieve had they made an error. Eau rouge was a brilliant place to line up for a pass down the back straight because of those bumps - now it is just a smooth flowing corner that is seen as an easy corner that it could be taken one handed (F-duct systems in 2010).

I guess it's the unpradictability that the circuit once had that I miss Where a car would get slightly sideways in eau rouge and the following car could pounce down the back straight!

[girry]

Eau Rouge has been a rather symbolic corner with F1 cars for a long while yeah (with the better cars anyway...Minardi drivers might have disagreed), with the only challenge being the need of Bravery to tackle the blind exit - but I must add, with modern cars and modern kerbs, it has developed a new twist....



...the most spectacular overtaking place in the whole calendar...

[takagi_for_the_win]

...it has developed a new twist....



...the most spectacular overtaking place in the whole calendar...

Sorry, 130R trumps that in my opinion

[roblo97]

...it has developed a new twist....



...the most spectacular overtaking place in the whole calendar...

Sorry, 130R trumps that in my opinion

i think both turns are overrated IMO because they are just to easy these days, I prefer corners like Pouhon because they are fast but not quite flat out, in other words BALLSY

[JJMonty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a0eZvfwEp8 <<<< THIS is what the corner is about....

[roblo97]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a0eZvfwEp8 <<<< THIS is what the corner is about....

that is what Eau Rouge SHOULD BE a real challange for the drivers because these day, it's just to easy IMO

[mario]

I'll chuck in one and see if my head gets bitten off....


Spa has had it's soul ripped out thanks to Tilke + FIA. The 2007 (current) layout lacks the challenge the circuit used to have with Eau Rouge now being a flat out "corner" with tarmac run off roads helping to punish the drivers into losing a couple of seconds instead of a gravel trap/wall that would see your race finish. Bus-Stop isn't a chicane anymore, but two clumsey hairpins with a horrible/narrow pit entry. Grand Prixs have become rather dull and had DRS not been brought in, then we would have had more processional races with a lack of overtaking (unless the rain made an appearance).


*Runs and hides*

To be honest, Eau Rouge is more of a symbolic corner than anything else since the challenge has long disappeared from that corner - it's been flat out for a long, long time now (some drivers were already flat out through Eau Rouge by the late 1980's), and most of the drivers have said that Pouhon has been the far bigger challenge around Spa (since that is almost, but not quite, a flat out corner).

As for the question of the track producing somewhat processional races when the conditions are dry, that is in part because there aren't actually that many places where you could feasibly pass another car - with most of the corners close to being flat out (the drivers spend over 70% of the time on full throttle), positioning your car anywhere else but the optimal racing line compromises you significantly and makes it difficult to pass into most corners.
There are only three major braking zones (which is why Brembo reckons that it is the circuit with the lowest brake wear on the entire calendar), and La Source is difficult to pass into simply because the length of the straight approaching that corner is so short, which means that the braking zone is not especially large. That only really leaves Les Combes and what was the former Bus Stop Chicane, and even then they are not especially easy to make a pass into since both of those corners have high speed corners before them, so the car behind tends to drop back slightly due to the effects of turbulence. From the point of view of a driver, therefore, it is an enjoyable circuit, but from the point of view of a spectator the spectacle may be less enthralling.

Ah, but the circuit was more challenging in the past. Even up to the turn of the centuary. Mainly because the circuit was still being run on public roads... that meant bumps, grass and a green circuit. It did make the races more exciting because a bumpy eau rouge could only be taken flat out if you had the "balls" to do so. It was possible to take it flat out from the dates you've mentioned but with great difficulty - look at images and you will see the cars bottoming out and the cars skitting across the circuit (look at JV's crashes of 1998 - 1999 of what happens when taking it flat out doesn't work). Once it became a perminant circuit, the surface was smoothed down and the run offs turned to tarmac. It removed the punishments that drivers would recieve had they made an error. Eau rouge was a brilliant place to line up for a pass down the back straight because of those bumps - now it is just a smooth flowing corner that is seen as an easy corner that it could be taken one handed (F-duct systems in 2010).

I guess it's the unpradictability that the circuit once had that I miss Where a car would get slightly sideways in eau rouge and the following car could pounce down the back straight!

It's an easy thing to say, but a hard thing to achieve - whilst it is true that the conversion of the track into a permanent venue that removed some of the bumps did make it easier, it is a process that was already happening due to the incremental improvements in car performance that have been associated with the sport.
Therein, there is something of a difficulty in balancing the difficulty, and therefore the spectacle, of the sport against the tendency of engineers to overcome those challenges by enhancing the performance of their cars and the USP of the sport being the sheer performance of the cars as much as, if not more than, the drivers themselves. After all, the Circuit de Monaco still retains much of its challenge, yet this year we saw Schumacher controlling the car with one hand through La Piscine in order to adjust the brake balance for the upcoming chicane - something of a one off moment, but a demonstration that even on traditionally tough circuits and with a car that isn't the best in the field, the drivers can still focus on other ancillary aspects.

The fact that the sport trades on its pure performance is the other problem, especially since you have series like GP2 or FR3.5 putting pressure on the F1 paddock to maintain a certain performance gap between itself and the junior series. With the junior series also being able to take corners like Eau Rouge flat out quite easily, if an F1 car was unable to repeat the same feat it would raise questions about the superiority of the supposedly senior series.

Making the track "harder" in some way would only be a stop gap solution in many ways, since the engineers would probably do as much work as the drivers in reversing that trend, not to mention that some of the changes in the way that the teams operate even over the past decade have taken a certain amount of sting out of some of the tracks F1 used to visit. As is so often the case, engineers will not simply "unlearn" what is already known, merely rework that knowledge in new ways, so that would have to be looked at as much as the tracks themselves.
Would a venue like Detroit, for example, be the same challenge it once was now that there have been considerable advancements in aerodynamics, brakes and suspension systems?

[JJMonty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a0eZvfwEp8 <<<< THIS is what the corner is about....

that is what Eau Rouge SHOULD BE a real challange for the drivers because these day, it's just to easy IMO

Coming from a racing driver's point of view... I am very 50/50. The corner in 1983 was bloody dangerous! And having seen Burti's crash live at Blanchmont, I can see why it is so safe today and am also thankful that safety is so great as it has stopped me from having fatal injuries! But at the same time, it's the sense of danger that gives me a real kick and makes driving such a great thrill! I love the risk that comes with it The tarmac run-off roads remove that sense and most drivers now abuse this safety by using it as a form of racing line :/

If Eau Rouge was the same as in 1983, but with the SAFER walls instead of armco's and tyre walls, would it be allowed? Is it the cars or tracks that have had the greatest improvement in safety features?

[JJMonty]

The fact that the sport trades on its pure performance is the other problem, especially since you have series like GP2 or FR3.5 putting pressure on the F1 paddock to maintain a certain performance gap between itself and the junior series. With the junior series also being able to take corners like Eau Rouge flat out quite easily, if an F1 car was unable to repeat the same feat it would raise questions about the superiority of the supposedly senior series.

If the junior series are running at a slower pace, then you would expect them to be able to take Eau Rouge flat out easily. Though I do understand your point Cars evolve and so circuits that were historically challenging are now easier to tackle.

Would a venue like Detroit, for example, be the same challenge it once was now that there have been considerable advancements in aerodynamics, brakes and suspension systems?

I'd love to see the cars back there! We only got to see them in the turbo era where the challenge was keeping the car moving (turbo lag causing them to almost stall). Probably why it was such a great track to see the DFV cars still being able to challenge for victory even when they were being thrashed else where!

[ibsey]

I'm also in favour with F1 cars tackling more bumpier tracks (like Detroit used to be). Whilst it might not be the same challenge in the current cars, that it once was. I guess the point is, at least may provide more of a challenge than the super smooth circuits we mainly see in F1 today. So it would be a step in the right direction. I think we have reached a level of safety where we can allow a few bumps here to spice things up a bit. However this is just the opinion of someone who also shares JJMonty view that the sense of danger is a real kick and makes driving such a great thrill. Which perhaps is a view not shared by the majority of people?

Personally I would be happy for F1 to give up some of that 'performance edge' over the lower forumula's. In return for seeing how certain cars, drivers & even engineers are able to deal with bumpier circuits. Again maybe this opinion isn't shared by most people. However it's always a refreshing sight for me when the cars are at Singapore or Monaco, to see them bouncing around, bottoming out, and generally feeling them to be more on the edge than normal. Also it does seem to be a bit of an unappreciated art form. The way the great drivers are able to deal with the bumps, better than just the merely good drivers.

However my biggest fear is that F1 would become less competitive as a result of the introduction of more bumpier circuits. Since the top cars & teams might be able to use their superior resources to perform better over the bumps than the smaller teams or even the midfield runners. Therefore F1 would not be as close as it has been in recent times, as a result. I'm not gifted on techincal matters enough to comment on whether that might be the case or not?

The tarmac run-off roads remove that sense and most drivers now abuse this safety by using it as a form of racing line :/

Remember Mansell, purposely using the Tarmac run-off (thus going of the track) coming out of the exit of La Source towards the end of the 1989. So I'm not sure you can just lay the blame at most of the drivers today. I guess it's that old thing isn't it, if you give a driver (from any era) an inch. They will always take a mile. It's their job as racing drivers to do so. Having said that perhaps there is a case that some drivers 'abuse' the runoff areas more than others?

[mario]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a0eZvfwEp8 <<<< THIS is what the corner is about....

that is what Eau Rouge SHOULD BE a real challange for the drivers because these day, it's just to easy IMO

Coming from a racing driver's point of view... I am very 50/50. The corner in 1983 was bloody dangerous! And having seen Burti's crash live at Blanchmont, I can see why it is so safe today and am also thankful that safety is so great as it has stopped me from having fatal injuries! But at the same time, it's the sense of danger that gives me a real kick and makes driving such a great thrill! I love the risk that comes with it The tarmac run-off roads remove that sense and most drivers now abuse this safety by using it as a form of racing line :/

If Eau Rouge was the same as in 1983, but with the SAFER walls instead of armco's and tyre walls, would it be allowed? Is it the cars or tracks that have had the greatest improvement in safety features?

Both have made substantial changes over the past 30 years, but it'd probably tip slightly more towards the cars than the circuits.

As one example, bear in mind that, back in the 1980's, the drivers feet were normally in front of the front axle line since that meant the drivers could be seated lower in the car (therefore giving a slight centre of gravity benefit), something that had remained pretty much constant since the early 1970's. It was part of the reason why head on collisions in that era tended to result in catastrophic lower leg injuries (for example, Martin Brundle's crash in Dallas in 1984 that broke both ankles and nearly ended his career, or Laffite's accident in 1986 that did end his career in F1), yet despite the record of sever injuries being caused by permitting that, it wasn't until 1985 that the FIA even thought of instituting a frontal crash test and not until 1988 before the FIA decided to move the driver's feet behind the front axle line.
Mind you, in some ways it is also remarkable that even some pretty basic changes to the circuits didn't come in until the 1980's either, and sometimes even later than that - it wasn't until 1980 that medical centres became compulsory at tracks, for example, whilst it wasn't until the late 1990's before the FIA decided to insist on debris fences for protecting the pit lane.

The fact that the sport trades on its pure performance is the other problem, especially since you have series like GP2 or FR3.5 putting pressure on the F1 paddock to maintain a certain performance gap between itself and the junior series. With the junior series also being able to take corners like Eau Rouge flat out quite easily, if an F1 car was unable to repeat the same feat it would raise questions about the superiority of the supposedly senior series.

If the junior series are running at a slower pace, then you would expect them to be able to take Eau Rouge flat out easily. Though I do understand your point Cars evolve and so circuits that were historically challenging are now easier to tackle.

Would a venue like Detroit, for example, be the same challenge it once was now that there have been considerable advancements in aerodynamics, brakes and suspension systems?

I'd love to see the cars back there! We only got to see them in the turbo era where the challenge was keeping the car moving (turbo lag causing them to almost stall). Probably why it was such a great track to see the DFV cars still being able to challenge for victory even when they were being thrashed else where!

It'd be interesting for the drivers, I imagine, but would it be as much of a challenge? With normally aspirated engines, turbo lag is now an irrelevance so that challenge is negated, whilst the increased durability of modern braking systems has largely eliminated brake fade and significantly cut the chances of brakes overheating and failing. Interlinked suspension systems, such as Mercedes use, interters and other advances in passive suspension design, meanwhile, mean that the bumps would be less of a problem these days, such that a repeat of the Detroit GP would probably play out as something close to the modern Singapore GP, just with daylight.

The tarmac run-off roads remove that sense and most drivers now abuse this safety by using it as a form of racing line :/

Remember Mansell, purposely using the Tarmac run-off (thus going of the track) coming out of the exit of La Source towards the end of the 1989. So I'm not sure you can just lay the blame at drivers today. I guess it's that old thing isn't it, if you give a driver (from any era) an inch. They will always take a mile. It's their job as racing drivers to do so. Having said that perhaps there is a case that some drivers 'abuse' the runoff areas more than others?

It goes back a few years earlier than that, as Brundle commented that they also used to constantly use that section of run off during the turbo era.

[TomWazzleshaw]

Personally I would be happy for F1 to give up some of that 'performance edge' over the lower forumula's. In return for seeing how certain cars, drivers & even engineers are able to deal with bumpier circuits. Again maybe this opinion isn't shared by most people. However it's always a refreshing sight for me when the cars are at Singapore or Monaco, to see them bouncing around, bottoming out, and generally feeling them to be more on the edge than normal. Also it does seem to be a bit of an unappreciated art form. The way the great drivers are able to deal with the bumps, better than just the merely good drivers.

Hence why I believe that if the Singapore race debuted in, say, 1998 rather than 2008, it would have easily been the best race on the calendar simply because the bumpy nature of the track coupled with the long lap would have broken cars like no tomorrow.

[Onxy Wrecked]

Would a venue like Detroit, for example, be the same challenge it once was now that there have been considerable advancements in aerodynamics, brakes and suspension systems?

It's probably as difficult today as back then due to Michigan's winters and Detroit's budget problems making the roads a bit bumpy in nature and even prone to the surface breaking up.

[UncreativeUsername37]

'Boring races' do not exist.

Yeah, no races are really boring to me. Some are still better than others, of course, but none of them are actually boring to watch.

[Salamander]

'Boring races' do not exist.

Yes they do. I actually fell asleep during the 2010 Bahrain GP, and just plain walked out of the 2012 Indian GP.

[ibsey]

Hence why I believe that if the Singapore race debuted in, say, 1998 rather than 2008, it would have easily been the best race on the calendar simply because the bumpy nature of the track coupled with the long lap would have broken cars like no tomorrow.

That's one of the things I miss.... proper 'car breaker' circuits in F1. Take the old Hockenhiem track for instance, what with the bumpy straights putting such a high stress on the engines for long periods of time. For me, one of the most entertaining things about the watching a race on these 'car breaker' tracks, was seeing which engine would go 'pop' in the best fashion.

So my unpopular opinion is that at least one or two races of an F1 season, should be held at tracks which are purposely designed to break engines / gearboxes / cars etc. I know generally speaking F1 cars todays are inherently super reliable. But I'm talking about extremely tracks.

Something like extremely bumpy tracks with mega long straights. So that the drivers who go for the win at those circuits, might for instance have a much higher than average chance of damaging their engines or gearboxes (thus effecting their engine/gearbox season allocations). Also it may mean that we see comedy races at these tracks where only 6 cars finish and a Marrussia or Caterham are able to get points.

EDIT; Also I would love to see F1 have least one race on a snow / ice covered track & one race on a dirt track...although now I really am being silly .

[roblo97]

'Boring races' do not exist.

Yes they do. I actually fell asleep during the 2010 Bahrain GP, and just plain walked out of the 2012 Indian GP.

I'm glad I missed the Korean gp because of my paper round and I completely forgot about India

[Onxy Wrecked]

Hence why I believe that if the Singapore race debuted in, say, 1998 rather than 2008, it would have easily been the best race on the calendar simply because the bumpy nature of the track coupled with the long lap would have broken cars like no tomorrow.

That's one of the things I miss.... proper 'car breaker' circuits in F1. Take the old Hockenhiem track for instance, what with the bumpy straights putting such a high stress on the engines for long periods of time. For me, one of the most entertaining things about the watching a race on these 'car breaker' tracks, was seeing which engine would go 'pop' in the best fashion.

So my unpopular opinion is that at least one or two races of an F1 season, should be held at tracks which are purposely designed to break engines / gearboxes / cars etc. I know generally speaking F1 cars todays are inherently super reliable. But I'm talking about extremely tracks.

Something like extremely bumpy tracks with mega long straights. So that the drivers who go for the win at those circuits, might for instance have a much higher than average chance of damaging their engines or gearboxes (thus effecting their engine/gearbox season allocations). Also it may mean that we see comedy races at these tracks where only 6 cars finish and a Marrussia or Caterham are able to get points.

EDIT; Also I would love to see F1 have least one race on a snow / ice covered track & one race on a dirt track...although now I really am being silly .

Now you see why they took the Detroit GP away and then moved it for IndyCar to Belle Isle. The street circuit's walls and straightaways were brutal on the cars both to bodywork and engines.

[roblo97]

Hence why I believe that if the Singapore race debuted in, say, 1998 rather than 2008, it would have easily been the best race on the calendar simply because the bumpy nature of the track coupled with the long lap would have broken cars like no tomorrow.

That's one of the things I miss.... proper 'car breaker' circuits in F1. Take the old Hockenhiem track for instance, what with the bumpy straights putting such a high stress on the engines for long periods of time. For me, one of the most entertaining things about the watching a race on these 'car breaker' tracks, was seeing which engine would go 'pop' in the best fashion.

So my unpopular opinion is that at least one or two races of an F1 season, should be held at tracks which are purposely designed to break engines / gearboxes / cars etc. I know generally speaking F1 cars todays are inherently super reliable. But I'm talking about extremely tracks.

Something like extremely bumpy tracks with mega long straights. So that the drivers who go for the win at those circuits, might for instance have a much higher than average chance of damaging their engines or gearboxes (thus effecting their engine/gearbox season allocations). Also it may mean that we see comedy races at these tracks where only 6 cars finish and a Marrussia or Caterham are able to get points.

EDIT; Also I would love to see F1 have least one race on a snow / ice covered track & one race on a dirt track...although now I really am being silly .

Now you see why they took the Detroit GP away and then moved it for IndyCar to Belle Isle. The street circuit's walls and straightaways were brutal on the cars both to bodywork and engines.

Wasn't that the race where the track broke up this year ?

[mario]

Hence why I believe that if the Singapore race debuted in, say, 1998 rather than 2008, it would have easily been the best race on the calendar simply because the bumpy nature of the track coupled with the long lap would have broken cars like no tomorrow.

That's one of the things I miss.... proper 'car breaker' circuits in F1. Take the old Hockenhiem track for instance, what with the bumpy straights putting such a high stress on the engines for long periods of time. For me, one of the most entertaining things about the watching a race on these 'car breaker' tracks, was seeing which engine would go 'pop' in the best fashion.

So my unpopular opinion is that at least one or two races of an F1 season, should be held at tracks which are purposely designed to break engines / gearboxes / cars etc. I know generally speaking F1 cars todays are inherently super reliable. But I'm talking about extremely tracks.

Something like extremely bumpy tracks with mega long straights. So that the drivers who go for the win at those circuits, might for instance have a much higher than average chance of damaging their engines or gearboxes (thus effecting their engine/gearbox season allocations). Also it may mean that we see comedy races at these tracks where only 6 cars finish and a Marrussia or Caterham are able to get points.

EDIT; Also I would love to see F1 have least one race on a snow / ice covered track & one race on a dirt track...although now I really am being silly .

It's going to be hard to develop circuits which are more punishing on the engines, though, since some of the current circuits are already pretty harsh on the engines.

For a start, Monza and Spa, for example, still place considerable stress on the engines. Renault pointed out that, with the cars going flat out through Eau Rouge, the run from La Source to Les Combes, at 17 seconds of full throttle, is even longer than at the old Hockenheimring, for example, and presents greater challenges than Hockenheim does because of the elevation changes (the loading from the cars going through Eau Rouge flat out, for example, creates considerable lubrication issues).
Spa and Monza, meanwhile, also see the engines being put through pretty heavy load cycling - the drivers are at full throttle for at least 75% of the time at Monza and about 70% of the time at Spa, which is significantly more than during the 3 litre V10 era, so the engines go through some pretty heavy load cycles already and still cope with that sort of punishment.

Other venues, meanwhile, introduce different challenges - the extreme temperatures of Bahrain, for example, coupled to the problem of the abundance of very fine wind blown sand grains creates challenges for the teams, whilst the teams seem to be able to cope reasonably well with the bumpiness and heat of Singapore.

The other problem is that, under the current regulations, the teams might then opt to cut down on their practise mileage to protect their engines a bit more at venues like that - which would probably not please those who go to the tracks on Friday to watch the practise sessions.

[TheBigJ]

I think Jean-Marie Ballestre is what made F1 so brilliant in the 80s.

[pasta_maldonado]

Red Bull have/will ruin F1

[Gerudo Dragon]

Red Bull have/will ruin F1

As a team, I don't like them. But I don't see how they could be a threat to F1 as a whole apart from making it boring by dominating every season they're in.