FERRARI OUT OF F1

P71 wrote: I for one would *love* to see Ferrari hit LeMans and try to knock the diesels off!

Or build a diesel of their own. Come on, you know it would be cool.

A bottom tier F1 car would lap the fastest Indy car in less than 10 laps. It's the nature of the beast. They have about the same HP as a NASCAR car, but weigh less than half as much.

In the quarter mile, an F1 car will run side by side with an average Pro Stocker, and that's QUICK!

There is simply no comparison; they are the baddest cars on the planet.

The soap opera is only part of the allure.

Actually, I'd really love to see an F1 car take on Le Mans. There's be a huge amount of work required to make the engine last the distance - or maybe they could swap the engine every 3 hours or so But could it be done? Where would you mount the lights?

I'm ignoring regulations for the sake of an interesting thought process.

I'm thinking a light bar across the top like you see on a lot of the off road vehicles. They'd need a little more light than those slower diesels.

KERS could be a big help too.

Apexcarver wrote: Will the FIA cave and change the rules (deadline for entry is may 29th apparently) or will Ferrari really pull out of F1? if so where will they go? Lemans? Nascar(-Vomit) I dont see them not racing, but what will they do?

Heh, heh...

Don't forget the other reason why even non-enthusiasts know what a Ferarri is..

I wish I had a blog. But since I don't, I'll bore you guys instead..

Okay, I love F1. Heck, without it, I'd probably never had been exposed to road racing in the first place. And the last couple o' seasons were much better than the World Championship's been in a long time. That being said, after having my 6yr-old mind blown by the Monaco Grand Prix on "ABC Wide World of Sports" in 1968, I soon discovered this whole thing where not only cars were raced on curvy roads, but some folks did it for hours at a time. I fell in love with sportscar racing. I was one of those kids that had the old Aurora Thunderjet slotcars with headlights, and turned off the light in the room-wishing I was Gurney, Foyt or Hall. I damn near burned the house down one day pouring water on the track so I could race in the rain. The transformer sparked like the Fourth of July.

The last time endurance (or even sprint) prototype sportscar racing was this strong, it was sanctioned by the FIA and it's member organizations (ACCUS, here in the US). Bernie Ecclestone saw endurance sportscar racing was about to eclipse F1 as the premiere form of motor racing on the planet. He was lucky then, since his decision to influence the FIA to kill Group C/IMSA GTP racing came at the time of another economic downturn, and the factories deserted that form of racing anyway. But his decision was based upon saving his "cash cow"-Formula One.

Things are different now. Sportscar racing only survived as a major league version of our sport by remembering the fans' emotional connection to that little race in France. The ALMS, and the LMS in Europe are connected to the ACO's rulebook in a way that IMSA GTP and FIA Group C never were. The 2nd to last round of the 2008 ALMS season, the "Petit Le Mans" 10hr or 1000km contest, drew more than 100,000 spectators simply because those of us not rich enough to go to Le Mans could actually see the cars & drivers that could.

I really hope that the FIA caves, and that Formula One remains a worthy World Championship. But if they don't, I hope everyone comes to play where two hours is but a single stint for a driver, where there's no need for NASCAR style spotlights to run at night, and the "Safety Car" doesn't come out unless the water on the road is a quarter-inch deep.

Last time Ferrari tried, they never got the 24hr deal done, but they won Sebring twice..without factory support.

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/627/Ferrari-333-SP.html

Toyota almost did it. Katayama's tire failure while leading in `99 was like something straight out of the old Steve McQueen movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_GT-One

And Renault's actually won the damn thing.

http://tinyurl.com/okxu7v

Keith wrote: Actually, I'd really love to see an F1 car take on Le Mans. There's be a huge amount of work required to make the engine last the distance - or maybe they could swap the engine every 3 hours or so

Haven't there been a number of teams in endurance sportscar racing over the past 15-20 years who have used heavily de-tuned F1-derived powerplants? Like Cosworths and/or Judds and the like? I seem to remember a few of the non-factory prototypes last time I saw ALMS (8-10 years ago) with deafening, screaming small N/A V-8s and V-10s.

The new rules may not be perfect but it would be nice to see less restrictions with a budget cap of some sorts. Watching the bbc commentary before the race in Spain I saw what the teams are calling "motor homes". They are multi-story giant buildings that cost at least 40 million alone. Stuff like that seems pointless to me and would be better invested into something cool.

Slot car racing "in the rain"!!! LMAO!

You are my new hero friedgreencorrado.

Back on-topic: It would be a real shame if they try to make F1 closer to a spec series. I certainly understand the need to start reigning-in costs somewhat in our current economic climate, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't my idea of progress. Without the technical innovation & competition from different manufacturers, it would be about as interesting as a spec miata race. Isn't that sort of the founding tenets of F1?

All that said, I can't help but feel like Ferrari is simply "taking their toys and going home" since they've had their first losing streak since god-knows-when (prolly one of you guys do as well, hehe). No one is going to mistake me for Tifosi however. So I'll take my own reaction with a grain of salt.

Last year's season was pretty good as well, but I'm a fan of the new rule changes this year, as it has been much more interesting racing. My wife and I haven't missed a race yet. However, I do love seeing the mighty fallen. As much as I love Europe, arrogance isn't in short supply over there, especially amongst the historically victorious. Jenson has practically been a hollywood plotline, we'll see if it has the same kind of ending . . .

Ferrari had a pretty nasty 15-20 year losing streak until the Schumy era. Only one driver's championship since he left as well. It's been pretty much Renault and Mc/MB's show the last 5+ years.

Ferrari (and Toyota, and McLaren/Mercedes, and Renault, and Red Bull who all threatened first) is simply pissed that F1 is going down the toilet. If the FIA really does go through with it you can bet your bottom dollar you'll see all of the aforementioned teams start their own F1.

P71 wrote: Ferrari had a pretty nasty 15-20 year losing streak until the Schumy era. Only one driver's championship since he left as well. It's been pretty much Renault and Mc/MB's show the last 5+ years.

Ya beat me to it. They didn't quit when they were losing back in the Turbo Era..

P71 wrote: Ferrari (and Toyota, and McLaren/Mercedes, and Renault, and Red Bull who all threatened *first*) is simply pissed that F1 is going down the toilet. If the FIA really does go through with it you can bet your bottom dollar you'll see all of the aforementioned teams start their own F1.

Yeah, that's much more likely than my Sportscar racing scenario, especially with money so tight. Why design a new car when you can just take the one you have somewhere else?

15-20 years losing streak? Ouch. I guess I'm really showing my age here. By the time I got interested in F1 in the late 90's, Schumacher was already competitive with Ferrari, although no championships until 2000 of course.

Anyways, thanks for the schooling

Schumi won a Championship with Bennetton the year before he went to Ferrari there mate. I think it's time you do some F1 history reading...

You're probably right about the need for history lessons, but I was referring to championships won with Ferrari in-particular, not Schumacher's entire career. (as it applied to your contention with my original un-educated statement about Ferrari's winning streak)

Anywhooze . . . I'd be interested to hear what you guys think about this year's rule changes and the treatment of the rear diffuser controversy. Good for competition? Bad for direction for eventual budget capping?

i miss the old days where the metal skid plates would hit from the car bottoming out and a shower of sparks fly, the old mansell vs senna days...

Rusty_Rabbit84 wrote: i miss the old days where the metal skid plates would hit from the car bottoming out and a shower of sparks fly, the old mansell vs senna days...

F1 COY??!!! that would be budget friendly

The argument over rules is funny, it comes up time and again. Below are a set of 'rules' I suggested in an F1 rules pissing match on another forum over 4 years ago.

Before I post those though, back to the original subject. I have mixed emotions on this. On one hand I want this to succeed and Ferrari force the FIA's hands to drop this stupidity. On the other I'd love to see the FIA call Ferrari's bluff and them be out. I'm no Ferrari fan and think they've got away with cheating and unfair advantages for years so I'd love to see it come home to roost for them. Remember a few years ago all the big teams were going to quit F1 and start their own series when the FIA were again screwing around with the rules. It would have happened, but Ferrari stepped down and went back to being Bernie's baby's screwing all the other teams in one go. They've had too much their own way for too long. On the whole though, of the two losers I hate the FIA more than I hate Ferrari.

Now on to my obviously perfect rule suggestion from years ago.

Bench racing at it's finest, my rules would be

Engine 1. Normally aspirated only

1. 3L max, this is to prevent torque monsters and keep things high revving, see next rule for explanation

2. Maximum inlet restrictor. Standard part supplied by FIA (or whoever run's the show). This can effectively let you pick your power. Size it to cap power at say 800 hp. Limiting to 3L capacity stops people building 10L big block that only rev to 5,000 rpm to negate this rule. The restriction can go anywhere prior to throttle bodies, but there must be no air inlet paths after it. If someone can build a gazillion liter holding tank into the car to get a momentary increase in the available air without killing the aero. package fine.

3. One extra point if the same engine last the whole weekend, one point deducted if more than two engines are used in one weekend. No engine changes during the race.

4. Fuel, 98 Ron unleaded. Samples checked by FIA at every event. Quantity unrestricted. Refueling by gravity at ambient temperature only.

Electronics. 1. Free with the exception that they must use a standard wiring loom/harness, this is available in any number of cylinders the team asks for. It would have standard terminals to mate with whatever sensors and control unit the team wishes. This would help limit but not eradicate driver aids without stopping electronic development. These harnesses could be handed out (with spares) at each event. 2. Telemetry free.

Gearboxes. 1. Semi automatic, max seven gears (plus reverse) but the driver must select each gear. No pre-programmed up or down shift schedules. 2. No CVT's or torque converters

Aerodynamics 1. Flat floor with a minimum ground clearance measured statically when the car is riding on those solid pit/transport wheels, this takes the variable of tire wear or inflation out of it. Obviously these wheels must be the same diameter as the nominal installed diameter of the tires, this will have to be determined and signed off prior to each event. All tires of different compound would have to be from the same mould.

1. From the center line of the car moving outwards the bodywork may only shape out or down, with the exception of the front and rear wing. This will eliminate winglets, barge boards etc. No part of the body may project below the flat floor. There is a max and min stated radius for the transition between the body and the flat floor. To allow for a raised nose there could also be a max and min radius for that, the important thing is little aero devise can start protruding from it. Some sort of exception is also needed for trailing edges and inlets/openings. These could be specified as a max/min radius with a max number of degrees of arc and limits on distance from the edge of panels.

3 Front and rear wing to have a maximum surface area, not just a plan area. If teams want to make wings that are not in a single plane when viewed from the front fine, as it the surface area that's limited. They may also have as many elements as they whish, but the combined surface area is the same. If they use multi element wings all elements must be within 10% overall width and surface area of each other (front and rear are independent of this). This will effectively limit winglets and mean all elements are full width.

1. End plate max area and must be completely flat.

2. There would have to be some carefully written wording for the mounting structures to prevent teams from using wing mounts as a method of circumnavigating rules 2 & 3.

Brakes 1. Max swept area is the only physical limitation.

1. No brake or pad changes during the race.

Wheels tires, the intent is slicks with much more mechanical grip.

1. Minimum four, maximum six wheels

2. Maximum tire tread surface area to be divided between each end of the car as they like. Think of a cylinder surface area. You can run tall narrow or short wide, probably the later. Whatever the teams and tire companies can agree on. Side to side the car must be the same, compound size etc

3. Any tire company must supply at least two teams. These teams must use engines from different manufactures.

4. Tire changes and qualifying tires free, but put a nominal cap of 24 tires per car per weekend to stop it getting too silly, rain excluded from this.

Suspension.

1. Metallic coil springs are the only allowed spring medium. Anti roll or stabilizer bars are excluded from this, but they must not have any effective bump/rebound rate except in roll.

2. Specify a maximum effective mechanical wheel rate of the spring. This is to stop people getting too creative with infinitely stiff springs and just using the tires or compliance in other components as the spring medium.

3. No active method of changing ride height in motion. Sure the aero package will compress the suspension, but this is limited by the down force. Also the # of parameters in the standard loom prevent active control.

4. Self contained dampers. This means no electronic, mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic etc inputs that could give active control. This does not limit remote reservoirs

Other.

1. Minimum weight obviously

2. Certain improved crash standards with a limit to the number of times a season you can change your tub or aero package.

3. Chassis and aero package must be homologated three weeks prior to it first race. If your not ready tough, run last weeks vehicle.

4. Qualifying is a one hour free for all. I know it could get a bit boring for live TV with 30 mins of no one on track. I loved the old method, it was the strategy thing again, watching track/ weather conditions and trying to get out for the best conditions but on an empty track. You can re-fuel after qualifying as well. No car can exit the pits if another car is within a certain distance of the start/finish. N warm up or slow down lap can be slower than 90% of the cars qualifying time or the qualifying time gets modified accordingly. This stops someone trying to hold up other people.

5. With the exception of rain a max of four pit stops per car. This is meant to be a race, not a series of qualifying laps after all. But if you can make the whole race without stopping great.

6. I'll keep the no tire change with re-fueling as that will make it interesting. What's better, light fuel and make the tires last or heavy fuel and keep changing tires. If you get a flat tire on your fuel in lap tough you should have come in a lap earlier, or you'll just have to go around again.

It's interesting to try an put this lot in words. I've watched F1 since around 1980 and I've had many conversations with my father and other people over the years as to what I would or wouldn't do If I were crowned Grand F1 Puba. What seems simple and straight forward in you head is a whole lot more difficult to express in 'rule' form, even when it's just a fun informal way like this. The truth is actually writing rules for the most expensive, high stakes sport in the world has got to be a tough job.

With regards to the "no brake changes" and "no engine changes" during the race, I'd love to see what would happen if this were actually allowed. Could someone win a race by changing an engine? Not terribly likely, but let's let the teams decide. Same with brakes.

Metallic coil springs are the only allowed spring medium. Anti roll or stabilizer bars are excluded from this, but they must not have any effective bump/rebound rate except in roll.

Aren't most teams allowing the suspension movement to come from control arm flex now? In other words, no pivot points at the inboard end. This effectively makes your control arms a spring.

Keith wrote: With regards to the "no brake changes" and "no engine changes" during the race, I'd love to see what would happen if this were actually allowed. Could someone win a race by changing an engine? Not terribly likely, but let's let the teams decide. Same with brakes.

Metallic coil springs are the only allowed spring medium. Anti roll or stabilizer bars are excluded from this, but they must not have any effective bump/rebound rate except in roll.

Aren't most teams allowing the suspension movement to come from control arm flex now? In other words, no pivot points at the inboard end. This effectively makes your control arms a spring.

The no engine changes were cecasue it's happend before, not in F1, but supposedly NASCAR back in the 60's, It may be an urban legand though.

No brakes were to stop pad changes.

Your right on the arm flex I guess, not much you can do about that I supose.

In the '70s, the Woods Brothers could change the engine in AJ Foyt's car in about 8 minutes. Hot.

In regards to F1, all I can muster up is a resounding meh. I was a big F1 fan back in the '70s and '80s as akid and young adult, but for at least 15 years it has just been so completely out of all touch with reality that I just cannot bring myself to be interested.

If an F1 team can find a way to use an 8 minute pit stop as a competitive advantage, I say let them!

ae86andkp61 wrote:

Keith wrote: Actually, I'd really love to see an F1 car take on Le Mans. There's be a huge amount of work required to make the engine last the distance - or maybe they could swap the engine every 3 hours or so

Haven't there been a number of teams in endurance sportscar racing over the past 15-20 years who have used heavily de-tuned F1-derived powerplants? Like Cosworths and/or Judds and the like? I seem to remember a few of the non-factory prototypes last time I saw ALMS (8-10 years ago) with deafening, screaming small N/A V-8s and V-10s.

Endurance racing is full of guys who've used F1 motors. Many of the very early Group C/IMSA GTP prototypes used Cosworth DFVs and such. My best memory is of the BMW GTP cars here in the US back in the `80s. They detuned the turbo 4cyl from Piquet's WC winning Brabham, stuffed it into a March chassis, and thought they'd rule the world. Harmonic vibrations caused fuel leaks..first time I saw it at Road Atlanta it almost burned to the ground. I think they won a race at Watkins Glen, but BMW quit after they saw running in IMSA GTP wasn't any cheaper than running Group C in Europe.

It goes both ways of course..the turbo v6 Renault used to win Le Mans was the starting point for their F1 engine, and the flat 12 Ferarri used in their series of 312 model F1 cars (starting in 1970 IIRC) began in their 512 and 312 sports racing cars.

The Judd's become a very popular motor for privateers in ALMS/LMS P1.

I think its silly that the sanctioning bodies (and I'm saying this across the board here... NASCAR, FIA (f1, WRC), even some of the domestic (NASA, dare I say SCCA) really have such little interest in maintaining a series that the public cares about. There are TOMES of racing history and the pages are filled with series that died out because the public lost interest, and in a lot of those cases, the public lost interest as the rules got so complicated that the series was no longer attractive from a spectators point.

Having said that, as a spectator, the thought of more grass roots (haha 62 million being grass roots? I never thought I'd say that) F1 with technical innovations that the spectator can watch (movable aero, AWD) sounds far more exciting than the current crop of also rans...

I miss the old days when people did crazy E36 M3 like active rear wings, 4 wheel front wheels, etc... and then we got to see the results of those crazy modifications.

I really feel the same about rally... ask any long term die hard rally spectator and they will get misty eyed about the late 80's early 90's gruppe M, and probably pretty darn nostalgic about the late 90's early 00's when WRC was running cars based at least loosely on production models and enjoying events on speed channel...

and now... um... its hard to find any die hard rally spectators left!

Even nascar has seen attendance dwindling. I'm not a huge nascar fan but my friends that are have constantly bitched about the "car of tomorow" where there is no brand differential at all, and also details like toyota's V8... everyone wants to know what would happen if they let toyota use a quad cam...

I dont know what the solution is to all this, I really dont. Motorsports events nationwide have been hurting, possibly as a result of the economic downturn, but I personally sure like to see cars racing that either having something to do with the cars I drive everyday, or are so far out of left field that they are pushing the envelope and changing our perceptions of what cars can do... and this latter definition is what F1 should be playing...

I'm not sure what the consequences will be, but I think I support the decision, so long as it doesn't spell the end of F1 (or the relevance of F1 in motorsports, which I think is more likely if all the major makers pull out).

am I the one of the few that wants to see an "anything goes" kind of F1? If there's no development on different stuff, stuff takes too long to get to production cars as it is....unless it's a Ferrari.

Lightning wrote: am I the one of the few that wants to see an "anything goes" kind of F1? If there's no development on different stuff, stuff takes too long to get to production cars as it is....unless it's a Ferrari.

Yep. My only rules would be safety wise, save two:

1) Performance would be limited to a max cornering G force. Gotta think if the drivers, yeah!

2) The car must meet size and weight standards.

Osterkraut wrote:

Lightning wrote: am I the one of the few that wants to see an "anything goes" kind of F1? If there's no development on different stuff, stuff takes too long to get to production cars as it is....unless it's a Ferrari.

Yep. My only rules would be safety wise, save two: 1) Performance would be limited to a max cornering G force. Gotta think if the drivers, yeah! 2) The car must meet size and weight standards.

I think the F1 teams can afford G-suits like the fighter pilots get.