Site logo

Chariots of Thunder

FEATURE BY MAX NOBLE
28/01/2016

Ben Hur gave us a race to remember. It had overtaking, cheating, near-death experiences for all competitors, and a frothing at the mouth, blood hungry audience to cheer on the valiant charioteers.

Now while we did not have fan interviews after the race, it's a fair bet this (fictional) crowd ambled home discussing the actual events of the afternoon, rather than the legal size of the axles, the minimum weight of a chariot or the questionable use of "advanced hay" as horse food to power past the opposition. Yes what actually transpired within the race would have been the major topic of excitement and discussion.

Schumacher rolling into Hill's path in Adelaide might not have been the most sporting of moves (or accidents) but here we are many years later and this actual on track, in the race, incident can still be recalled and discussed with animation and fervour by fans around the world.

The precise car defining rules of that year escape me without going to a formal reference, with the exception of the engine, which was loud and frightening as it should be, and the wheels which were clearly wide and grippy, also just as it should be.

So since Ben Hur got it so right, a tradition of racing spanning thousands of years as it were, when did the rule makers go so wrong? Now it seems that we all forget the action from the past season (Lewis won nearly every race, all Tilke-penned corners look the bloody same, only fortnightly variations to anticipate being the totally illogical choice of podium interviewer), while obsessing over rules, and their agreed interpretation.

Pre-season excitement? Is Haas following the rules on being supplied by Ferrari, and how we count wind tunnel hours, or are they being naughty? Not for us the romantic-period excitement of a dawn duel as now captured by the America's Cup... where the current cup holder throws down the gauntlet by framing the entire match as "Meet me at this stretch of water at dawn with a bloody big boat and we will see who is master of the waves matey!" No arguing about who is exceeding what salary cap while using one too many super computers.

So how do we return to the path of virtue and enlightenment whereby we go back to focusing on the racing action?

Without question, simplification, and handing the role of policing the whole endeavour back to the not-for-discussion laws artfully drawn by Miss Physics.

Miss Physics has a strong no nonsense policy for providing precisely the same bounding laws to all who care to reside in this Universe. No exceptions, no cheating, no platinum frequent flyer promotion to the head of the queue. Not even take it or leave it. While she is demure and polite, Miss Physics does not take ‘no’ from anyone when it comes to compliance with her laws. She can be somewhat obsessive in her even-handedness one might say. And she is beyond corruption. One can walk or run up to the edge of one of her laws. One can bounce harshly off one of her laws. Yet one can never break one of her laws.

Sounds like the perfect police enforcement agency to me. So how do the FIA and Formula One get Miss Physics on the pay roll? Well it is amazingly simple. She asks for no remuneration, she works 24/7 without argument, and she never asks for holidays. All she asks is that you clearly recognise where she has drawn the line and behave accordingly.

Easy, right?

Well apparently not. We humans are oh so capable of complicating every aspect of life in this universe. The more of us involved, the more perceived power - remember it ultimately resides with quiet Miss Physics, regardless of how hard you try to make yourself the centre of your own little universe - and especially the more money - of no interest to Miss Physics remember - then we get in our own way and over complicate our journey into our next grand mess. The FIA and those involved in running Formula One are especially good at placing themselves at the centre of their own contrived universes, and then thinking they make the rules and are God over their special creation.

So step one in our rework of the rules is to get out of our own way. Or rather get all the vested interests of all the little pretend Gods out of the way.

Next we need to have a serious heart-to-heart with Miss Physics. Which of her lovingly crafted laws do we want to most clearly apply to our modest chariot race?

I put at number one on the list, safety. First for the drivers, then team members, and then all those at the track. Deformable crash structures, geometric compatibility between cars, and no nasty sharp bits, or unintentionally detachable high speed missiles, would appear to top our necessary rule list.

So crash tests and survival cells need the simplest defining words we can craft. Then we need to define maximum and minimum mass of the car, driver, and fuel trinity. Ah fuel. I recommend we say no to nuclear, and anything truly toxic in the event of an accident. Beyond that... Go on, be creative!

Now we need to define a three dimensional shape within which it must all fit, and the points of geometric compatibility we want to ensure trackside safety measures are effective, and that inter-vehicle crashes give each driver involved maximal protection.

Next we need a refuelling rule, and tyres rulings... Or do we? Surely encouraging the mix between multiple sprints on super soft tyres, compared to slow and steady as she goes with no pit stops is the sort of complex strategic trade-off we want to see teams sweating over during a race?

This is one area I think the FIA are actually pushing in the right direction. Allow Pirelli to develop a suite of tyres and the teams can specify in advance two types per race from a range all the way from super, super soft, right up to tough beasts with a chance of just about making a race distance. Now go figure. If it rains all teams have a standard issue intermediate and full wet, but can still only use the two dry tyres they have selected.

RELATED ARTICLES

LATEST FEATURES

more features >

LATEST IMAGES

galleries >

  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images

POST A COMMENT

or Register for a Pitpass ID to have your say

Please note that all posts are reactively moderated and must adhere to the site's posting rules and etiquette.

Post your comment

READERS COMMENTS

 

1. Posted by Max Noble, 07/02/2016 4:05

"@All - very interesting exchange. My thanks to all for reading and considering the article, and providing (for the most part!) fascinating feedback. I believe that it once again highlights that F1 fans are a considered bunch who for the most part grasp far more of the complexity of the sport than many in F1 positions of power give us credit for. Framing sensible, enforceable, rules in such a complex sport is no easy task. We can only hope that the FIA and all other stake-holders and decision makers have kept the common good and simplicity foremost in their minds as they try to re-frame the rules for the next couple of years to support excellent racing. I'm delighted to see the token system going out the door, but then I have concerns this will only increase budget-stress on the mid-field and back of field players..."

Rating: Neutral (0)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

2. Posted by Tazio, 05/02/2016 1:14

"Excellent, excellent, piece"

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

3. Posted by GrahamG, 03/02/2016 13:13

"Excellent and interesting set of thoughts. I think the theme here is less regulation and more perspiration and that's exactly how it should be. The great innovators of the past (and can I include Adrian Newey in that list) would have walked away from what we have now and gone LMP racing where at least innovation and some different technical solutions are on show and the drivers do make a difference and the tyres do allow flat out driving for long periods.
Really shocking that the fastest driver/car combination should win, Bernie will never allow that heretical thought!
Physics as a sole limiting factor would be a good way forward, but unfortunately the good lady does not massage egos or hand out gold bars, and those are the chief factors in F1 at the moment.
Congratulations Max, you are saying what many think"

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

4. Posted by Max Noble, 02/02/2016 9:44

"I made a promise to myself to revisit the money distribution issue from the basis of a points redistribution system I outlined in an earlier article. I really will try to get around to that prior to the start of the season. As I agree with @scf1fan that money is an integral part of the machine, and like our global "water shortage" the money shortage in F1 is more about mis-management and poor allocation rather than a true "shortage". "

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

5. Posted by scf1fan, 02/02/2016 0:52

"@Max . . . "wallet racing" . . . how will F1 distinguish itself then from everyone else? Make it "cheap" enough that anyone can compete, and it will just be Nascar. (Plus, the major manufacturers will probably leave the sport because they will still feel hobbled one way or another.)
.
A variation on the old adage is that going fast cost money, but cubic inches are cheaper than everything else . . . But personally, I feel that there is more than enough money in F1 to support it as it is. (Baring a world wide recession.) So this brings me back to a previous topic/solution which is to distribute the prize money more evenly! (Call it financial handicapping.) In all probability, ever dollar/euro/pound not given to MB, Ferrari, or RB will be that much less money that they'd be willing to spend. Conversely, any additional prize money given to the likes of Manor, Lotus, or Sauber will in all likelihood improve their cause, and therefore their competitiveness.
.
I often hear the cry here that "money" is the problem, yet almost as often I hear that "we" don't want to pay the "non-performers" . . . In my eyes, if a team can produce a car capable of 107% of MB, they deserve some portion of the pie. (If for nothing more than their entertainment value and providing seats for the next generations of drivers.) The current mode of F1 operation is that the "rich get richer" while the "poor get poorer" . . . (Be it in money or technology.)
.
The weight handicapping would tend to help this by allowing the back marker teams to score some points as the season went along. Though just splitting the pot more equitably would go a long way to help the situation. (Maybe 70% split evenly between all the "shows" and then the rest per point? They say that winning is it's own reward . . . right? ;-)
.
That would require some of the teams with the sweetheart deals, like Ferrari, to forgo their "appearance" money. They will have to be willing to win it on their performance, not collect it due to their past prestige. The likes of MB and Ferrari would still spend a lot more than the smaller teams, but they'd probably have to think a lot harder about it. (And they'd still get the lion's share of the ad revenue to spend anyway.)
.
That would be the least artificial and meddlesome way of trying to bring the field closer together. (And it would also provide the additional incentive most teams already understand; money!)"

Rating: Positive (2)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

6. Posted by Max Noble, 01/02/2016 11:27

"@scf1fan: All good points. Not sure where I stand on handicapping as it is difficult to agree a measure that does not add to the artificial feel. My feeling is weight and fuel limits should impose bounds.

I've always fancied having a second race each weekend where all the drivers swap cars so we get to see if Lewis can monster a Manor onto the podium and if the new young Harry Hotwheels can get a Mercedes to fly like Lewis does at 1% of the wage bill. It would start to give answers to the driver/vehicle balance of performance.

Agree the "engineering race" is fascinating. And yes we need rules to keep them on their toes, while trying to contain the worse excesses of "wallet racing" whereby the richest team wins.

Let's hope that the FIA have given everyone a fractionally more even playing field this season, and that Ferrari and Williams have produced crackers!"

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

7. Posted by Yeyox02, 31/01/2016 20:51

"Excelent article Mr. Max Noble. If only teams could test freely their ideas on track that would be a good start but.....lunatics are still runing the asylum...."

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

8. Posted by scf1fan, 31/01/2016 19:53

"@Max/all There are two kinds of rules to achieve a competition; one kind being to establish the nature of the competition, I.E. cover 186 miles on this track according to these criteria . . . F1 has more than enough of those now! Over and above orchestrating the event itself, some of these rules are partly for marketing, some are partly to "control" costs, etc.. All of the teams have to follow the same rules, so, if you consider them artificial or not, they create an imminently fair environment in which to compete (though don't get me started on the distribution of the prize money . . . ) yet no one seems to be happy. Why is this?
.
I would say it's because no one wants to see one team/driver/club/etc. win ALL of the time, (or even 50% of the time) no matter how fairly the rules are being adhered to. So some people think that they can address this by tinkering with the basic rules. So far, most of the tinkering has been "global" in nature, that is everyone has to adhere to the rule even though the benefit is uneven in its result. The DRS is an example of this and I believe that most would call that an artificial rule. It's hard to pass with the current dependence on aero grip, so F1, under certain circumstances gives certain competitors a momentary advantage. I could say that for this reason, this kind of rule is the worst kind of artificial rule; it is very situationally specific. I would also say that it does seem to work though; in two different ways. First in that it does gives the illusion of greater competition by allowing/encouraging more passing. I say illusion, because in the end, other than perhaps in an end of race pass, (speaking of an artificial circumstance) the next lap gives the same advantage back to the car previously passed. This is true unless the previously following car is actually faster to begin with. So, secondly, in this case, although helpful, the DRS is not actually increasing the competitive aspect of the race. (And personally, I do think the DRS is useful for just that purpose! Getting faster cars around back markers more easily.)) So DRS does look good, but actually doesn't mean a lot.
.
I use DRS there as an example; no matter how craftily one tries to engineer a set of rules, it is difficult/if not impossible to achieve a competitive balance only with equitable rules. I see most of the suggestions in the same light. You give MB and Lewis Hamilton the choice of additional tire types and 99/100 he will still out perform Manor. (And unless Ferrari improves their engine, 60/100 times MB will still out perform F.) F1 has been playing this rules game for a long time and yet they still seem to be losing ground; and this is due to the basic fact that there is truly only a small range of best answers to a specific problem. It is also very difficult and expensive to keep close to that optimal answer. (Just ask McLaren!)
.
Frankly, I'm OK with this, but I'm an engineer so I like to see the teams trying to approach that solution. (In season testing would help this, but it wouldn't solve the basic complaint!) So, although I would really rather avoid this, the only real solution is to leave the technical rules alone and just add a layer of handicapping. Handicapping has been done throughout history in many different sports including automotive racing; and if it's not done too egregiously, can work. Of course that could be screwed up as well (like perhaps by having a carry-over weight penalty between seasons) so its application would have to be well considered. (1/4 kilo/championship point?)
.
Is that artificial? Yes. But seemingly too few people are happy with the currently less artificial rules.
.
IMO anyway. :-) "

Rating: Positive (2)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

9. Posted by FormulaFun, 31/01/2016 10:30

"Interesting piece, Mr. Noble
I've been absent from the PitPass site due to work commitments recently however it's always refreshing to read one of your articles. I think when racing around monaco the car usually beats the driver unless one of the greats is racing around. Interesting contrast shown between the old chariot racing times and the now modern equivalent racing times. Keep it up, max
- FormulaFun "

Rating: Positive (2)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

10. Posted by Max Noble, 31/01/2016 3:10

"@scf1fan and all: nothing like some off season banter to liven up F1 prior to the first race!

Interesting to see the manner in which most of you are framing the need for rules to add some sensibility to proceedings. I agree that a "Formula Libre" is not a desired state as it would result in some curious results that would be scientifically interesting, but not "motor racing".

@cricketpo - well quite. I do rather see Miss Physics more aligned to Lara Croft than Miss Tiddiwinkle. She is very polite, yet will say "that's how it goes" as she watches a law of physics crush your dreams. I recommend nice manners with Miss Physics as she takes no prisoners.

No doubt we need some rules. Yet at some point they feel like they become "artificial". Not sure where that line is precisely yet we all get a bad feeling once we agree it has been crossed. Right now a few too many F1 rules feel artificial. And I personally dislike rules that force one and only one solution. I feel the current engine rules are far too prescriptive. They need to be well bounded, and yet reward original thinking.

To safety I think we must surely all align that no more driver (team member, Marshal, or fan) deaths is the ideal. Yes it must be dangerous. Yes tracks must punish mistakes. But never with death. That is simply a step too far. Dangerous and thrilling, yes. Deadly, never.

Thanks to all for some very interesting thinking. "

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

11. Posted by gturner38, 30/01/2016 2:58

"@nonickname

Apart from some bloodlust on the part of fans who would never have the guts to put themselves in the same position they want their drivers to be in, what is the advantage of less safety? Were Brazilians more thrilled to watch F1 on May 2, 1994 than they were when Senna lined up on the Imola grid the day before? Is having "Salut Gilles" written on the Montreal circuit better for the sport than the possibility of more great passes from the elder Villeneuve? We don't demand that the ball in a World Cup match randomly explode so we have a chance of seeing carnage because it's about seeing the skill of the players, not watching people dodge human tragedy.

I also think it's unfair to suggest that today's drivers wouldn't have been willing to get into a car 30 years ago. There's enough denial to do what they love even while acknowledging the risk. Jackie Stewart kept driving while fighting for more safety.
"

Rating: Positive (2)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

12. Posted by cricketpo, 30/01/2016 1:18

"Oh dear! Oh dear!
I think Max has spent too long in confined spaces! The heady brew of fresh air and sunshine upon his emergence has obviously proved too much for his delicate disposition. The re emergence of "Miss Physics" could define what the health professions call "an episode".
Where to start? where to start indeed?
First off let us dispense with this notion of little "Miss Physics". It makes her sound like some sort of imp that goes around sabotaging corners and equipment with the wrinkle of her nose (like in Bewitched - showing my age!). A blushing princess rumbustuous designers can court or seduce with a simple gentleman's excuse me at the drivers ball in Paris.
Closer to the truth would be that Physics, or Butch as he likes to be called, is in fact built like a brick outhouse, kickstarts 747 for fun, chews girders for a snack and will sell his soul (and his grannies) to the highest bidder (currently Mercedes). Now that is dealt with let us start on the article. I would like to know how Max is so confident that coliseum goers didn't discuss axle width after the races? Having stated that chariot racing is more fun because of the physical damage to drivers (and possibly the audience) his first rule is about safety. Make your mind up!
I have stated before that the joy of F1 is the technology. However we are in a period of world sport that builds on the ethos of "Marginal Gains". The concept is about improving everything by a little bit to gain a sum greater than its parts. Which is fine in the world of cycling where it is about a bloke (or woman) and a bike. Both simple bits of kit that have evolved over a period of time and not much more you can tweak on them so all you are left with is the marginal gains. I am not sure what the next "big idea" will be in F1 (and if I did I would be banging on some well known doors) but we should be producing a framework in FIA that lets a team make a leap of faith in a new piece of kit. Or even lumber in the shallow end of disappointment if they get it wrong.
So we have several variables, lets see, drivers, tyres, engine, aerodynamics. What can be done with these?
1) drivers - we can do without them surely - just think how much more fun it would be to see a robotic Ferrari bury itself in a tyre wall?
2) tyres - there could be a lottery before the morning of the race and Pirelli will supply half of the teams with a tyre particulalry suited to the track and half of the teams with a substance that could not be garaunteed to last the warm up lap let alone the start
3) engines - a common size and the rest is limited by what you can pack into the car
4) fuel - anything within reason and local fire safety regulations. Instead of gasoline powered hybrids why not hydrogen fuel cells?
My final point would be that for all the calls for less regulation, more racing etc.. it is still possible for a team to get it ALL completly wrong and end up shaming themselves and their drivers. Step forward Maclaren "

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

13. Posted by Spindoctor, 29/01/2016 15:44

"Firstly, like SCF1fan I'm no fan of noise for its own sake. If you like noise, go watch NASCAR.
The reason F1 PUs are both powerful & quiet, is because they're re-using energy that might otherwise generate noise to make the car go faster.

You acknowledge that we've got to have rules, as soon as it stops being a complete free-for-all, (AKA "Formula Libre" some smart bugger will figure out a loophole\cheat. Unfortunately poor old Miss Physics's feminine wiles are vastly too well understood by the people designing cars today, aided & abetted by more computer power than the average nation they'll find a way...

Having said all that there's plenty of room for simplification mainly in aerodynamics, but also by ditching the silly tyres you seem so fond of!
Given your strictures about the importance of Drivers over designers I find your idea that "tyre management" should be a vital part of F1 pretty amazing. A car's propensity to eat tyres is related to its design, factors like down-force being critical. Your idea of rules which encourage both Hares and Tortoises is most likely to founder on the exact point at which the rubber meets the road.... The only rational solution to meet the disparate needs of both critters, AND have meaningful tyre management would be to have so many tyre options, we might as well just have no tyre rules at all.

As Scf1fan clearly elucidates, the more limiting the rules, and the longer they're in force, the more cars will evolve towards a single set of design parameters.

In principle I agree with most of your ideas. My emphasis might be:
1. Overall low weight limit
2. Total Fuel mass\volume allowed for the cars - refuelling allowed
3. Total vehicle "Surface Area" limits set at (say) 60% of today's wingleted stupidity. I've no idea how this could be policed, but I'm sure it could be done.
4. Extensive in-season development & testing of all elements of cars & PUs to be allowed
5. More than 1 tyre supplier...


Within these broad constraints let anything (safe) go. If Renault wants to use a Turbocharged 3 litre engine - go for it, If Ferrari want a V-12 so be it
"

Rating: Positive (2)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

14. Posted by scf1fan, 28/01/2016 22:54

"" . . . with the exception of the engine, which was loud and frightening as it should be, . . . " If I want loud and frightening, I'll go to a D.T. rally! ;-) I guess I'm one of the few that believes that the primary goal in racing is to get across the finish line first! (While (at least trying to be) staying within the rules.) The goal of F1 was to do so at some applicable leading edge of automotive "road" technology. (As opposed to say drag racing or off-road racing.)
.
At the end of the day, given a defined set of rules (which currently don't allow any significant variation) there will be only 1 best solution +/- some fraction. At that point it will then be how well the teams and drivers can execute that to that solution. Changing the tire rules, or the refueling rules, or the engine rules will not change this. (Unless the rules just change so radically that it just becomes a continual lottery.) The team and driver that can get closest to that "1" solution will usually be the #1 in the race . . . Why does the F1 crowd seem to expect/want a different outcome? Part of the reasons that we have the "parades" that some describe the F1 races as are because of the rules that prevent the teams (or at least the teams with the money!) from pursuing that "1" solution. So if at the beginning of the year, MB = 1.1, F = 1.3 and Honda = 2.3 (I.E.) but they are only allowed to improve their cars by 10%, they will then be MB = 1.09, F = 1.27 and Honda at 2.17 (+/-) at the end of the year. Nothing has changed. If what a team tries doesn't work they just go back to the previous revision, but still fall further behind.
.
The reason that NASCAR racing is so close is that it is significantly easier for the top teams to get a car to perform with in the +/- margin of error. They do this in a number of ways, (such as that the basic car is held very close to a standard configuration) but most of those ideas go counter to the basic premise of F1.
.
I suspect the real desire for most F1 fans is to close up and equalize the field to some degree. Short of making it cheap enough that anyone with $50 million can fully develop a competitive car, another way, more in keeping with F1 technology's image, would be to handicap the cars (with weight) relative to their prior performance. I've discussed this idea previously and it worked reasonably well with Audi in the TransAM series. (I believe. Though eventually it helped Audi to decide to quit the series.)
.
So there are really the three (relative) solutions: 1) allow a broader set of rules which allows innovation so lightning might strike and provide a competitive car out of the blue, 2) tighten the rules up so much that no one can do anything unusual, but then make it cheap enough that anyone can deliver a competitive machine, or 3) keep the rules somewhat as they are and then handicap the leaders.
.
Since any other rule change would apply to all teams equally, (from best to worst) changing the technicalities of the existing rules in the hopes of fostering a different outcome from the last few years would probably be long on the hope part, and short on the achievement part."

Rating: Positive (2)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

15. Posted by ClarkwasGod, 28/01/2016 18:48

"@ nonickname:

"Motor sport is now as safe as sleeping in a cocoon,there is no risk,who has got the balls to do it..nothing."

I think that John Surtees, and both Dan Wheldon's and Justin Wilson's widows would disagree with that nonsense.

"

Rating: Positive (2)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

Share this page

X

Copyright © Pitpass 2002 - 2024. All rights reserved.

about us  |  advertise  |  contact  |  privacy & security  |  rss  |  terms