Drivers welcome plans for more spectacular cars

2015 Monaco Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

F1 drivers have supported plans for a package of changes intended to make races and cars more spectacular.

The F1 Strategy Group last week announced plans to make cars quicker, louder and more aggressive-looking. Kimi Raikkonen was one driver to endorse the move during today’s FIA press conference ahead of the Monaco Grand Prix.

“I think it would be nice and it would be good for everybody and it would look much nicer,” said Raikkonen. “I think it would be more like it used to be. I think it’s the right way to go. Hopefully it happens, we have to wait and see.”

“Obviously something has to change for the future to make it more interesting, make it more challenging for us also,” he added. “It would be nice to see the cars going faster and all those things.”

Jenson Button said there was “always room for improvement” with the formula, and said he had preferred driving higher-performing F1 cars earlier in his career.

“For me the best years I raced in Formula One, the most fun from a drivers’ point of view, was 2004,” he said. “We had V10 engines, three-litre, 900 horsepower that revved to 21,000. We had a tyre war.”

“It was great, but times change. The costs and everything have got to be taken into account. I don’t really know where that puts us for the future.”

The possible return of refuelling received a mixed response. Raikkonen and Lewis Hamilton backed its reintroduction, but Button pointed out there were potential drawbacks.

“You obviously have the safety aspect, the reason why we went away from refuelling,” he said, “and also the money, the cost.”

“In terms of racing, I think it was great back in the day when we had refuelling. If you had an issue on lap one you could change your race around, do something different, whereas now it’s very difficult.”

2015 Monaco Grand Prix

    Browse all 2015 Monaco Grand Prix articles

    Author information

    Keith Collantine
    Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

    Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

    34 comments on “Drivers welcome plans for more spectacular cars”

    1. “For me the best years I raced in Formula One, the most fun from a drivers’ point of view, was 2004,” he said. “We had V10 engines, three-litre, 900 horsepower that revved to 21,000. We had a tyre war.”

      We could have all that within the current formula. Just let Pirelli make durable and racier tyres, ditch DRS and voila. No need for refueling which in the end is just another artificial gimmick in disguise.

      1. @xtwl

        Don’t forget the 21,000 revs and the V10 though!

        1. @paulguitar Both are just numbers. If the V6s made the same engine not one person would be bothered with how many revvs they make.

          1. @xtwl

            Did you ever spectate at Blanchimont/Parabolica in the V10 era though? I don’t think it would be possible to get anywhere near that kind of a visceral thrill with a 6, and certainly not with a turbo……..

            1. @paulguitar I have, and most recently even visited the LMP1 at Spa. These cars make one hell of a brilliant sound, and they are not V10s.

          2. There is nothing comparable with the V6 turbos of Honda, Ferrari and Renault on the Spa track in an audiovisual way. It was like WW2 aeroplanes passing by in flat-hat. I don´t mind the revs they had.

          3. V10s probably had more overall torque (and did not die at high revs due to lack of fuel) and all of the power was available when you stepped on the throttle pedal. Not this boring hybrid nonsense with these weak engines and artificial power numbers. V10 could do 900hp all around the track, lap after lap until it broke. The v6 most of the time only does probably something like high 500hp (which is just PATHETIC) with 161hp boost on straightaways for some more seconds. And the electric motor is only used when the car is already traction limited (there is not even chance for wheelspin). Not to mention how much the teams need to lift and coast to recharge the batteries.

            When it comes to the engines being spectacular or not… what we have now is toyota prius. Anemic, unexciting, “eco friendly” and sounds like a lawnmower. The V10s were the complete opposite, amazing. Great sound, amazing power and torque at all revs, cheaper, lighter, could do more hp and probably last longer too if you drop the horsepower a little to preserve the engines for more races.

            I think the current f1 engine is a complete failure. Too expensive, too boring.

      2. @xtwl

        I really wanted to go to Spa, but I am work on a ship so am unable to see any live racing at the moment.

        I thought those cars were supposed to not sound too impressive? I suppose I need to go along and see what I make of it live, first chance I get, I will go, missed both Spa and Silverstone due to work……..:(

        1. @paulguitar Well, you’re welcome to join me next year at Spa.

          1. @xtwl

            That’s very kind of you, I will let you know if I am going. Working on a cruise ship plays hell with attending races, but I try to get to as many as I can.

        2. @paulguitar, with regards to the sound, it is one of those things where it is ultimately a subjective experience – there are some who openly dislike the new engine note, whilst equally there are some who are hugely enamoured of them (for example, the photographer Darren Heath, who has spent much of his career watching a wide variety of cars, has written about how he considers the V6’s to have a far richer and enjoyable note than the V8’s).

      3. Refueling is most certainly not a gimmick. No more so than changing gears or changing tires.

        1. @chaddy Refueling IS a gimmick. Just like DRS an unneeded thing in F1 with the target to improve on track racing. Why build an engine that can do 305km on less than 100kg fuel if you’re going to refuel during the race? Completely passes the entire target of being more environmental friendly. In the end refueling will lead to cars use the max fuel flow limit all the time.

          1. spafrancorchamps
            20th May 2015, 21:34

            The whole ‘environmental’ F1 is a gimmick.

          2. coz cars can be lighter and drivers can push tires, less coasting and so overall be faster.

          3. Well, technically refuelling isn´t a gimmick, but forbidding it is. Refueling was something engineers came up with to go faster, and it didn´t need any rules, as there were no rules about refuelling (the word wasn´t mentioned in the rulebook at all) when it first came about.
            Doesn´t mean allowing it would be any good in an entertainment-sense. If it was all about the sport, and entertainment-issues would be totally disregarded when writing the rules, there´d probably be refuelling if it´s faster to go a race-distance that way.

      4. LOL, you make me think that refueling is a gimmick in every racing dicipline (even in endurance event)..xD

    2. Drivers’ preferences have changed over time. In the past drivers always proposed a massive reduction of downforce in an attempt to improve both safety and the show. In early 2000s, they proposed that as an alternative for the grooved tyres and high-downforced cars. In the 1980s, Gilles Villeneuve and Didier Pironi even went as far as binning downforce all together.

    3. If you had an issue on lap one you could change your race around, do something different, whereas now it’s very difficult.”

      I find that odd because refueling tended to hurt a driver who had an issue early in the race as it left them out of position & in most cases on completely the wrong strategy for the place they then found themselfs & that made recovering much harder.

      If you were a faster car running a fairly heavy fuel load stuck mid-pack racing cars running much lighter you weren’t going to make that much progress.
      Today with everyone on fairly equal fuel loads its far more possible to come back through the field if your faster even discounting things like DRS.

      1. As for example Hamilton his own drive in the 2012 Spanish GP.

      2. Exactly. Even in 2010 we had quite many examples of such recovery, like Alonso in Australia, Ferraris and McLarens in Malaysia, all drivers who pitted for inters at the start in China, Alonso in Monaco, Vettel in Great Britain, just to mention few. They not only required pace, like in refuelling era, but also tyre management and provided brilliant racing.

        I’m not saying it didn’t happen before 2010, but certainly in such cases more emphasis was put on delivering lap time in free air and overtaking mainly in pit stops with strategy.

      3. @gt-racer I have to say I’m shocked by what JB says. How did they ever recover from a bad start with refuelling? they either had to fill it to the brim and carry on, usually eating tyres quicker than the others, and going slower too, or they needed a SC to save them.

        If one of the variables goes away (the fuel, which is a massive variable given the implication in the laptimes vs weight), you’d think recovering would be easier.

        Not to mention those ridiculous rules regarding refuelling under SC which threw odd race results and qualy fuel.

        1. I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the prospect of it making the cars faster in races & are therefore forgetting And/Or ignoring everything else.

          I recall reading comments from drivers in 2008 where they were talking about the banning of traction control with Robert Kubica (Among others) talking about how they didn’t like the TC ban because it made them slower.

    4. Mustavo Gaia
      20th May 2015, 18:14

      Given precedent instances, aggressive cars means 18 inch wheels and different living for same team cars. That’s the most F1 will go.

    5. This was all so much easier when Tobacco money paid for everything.

      1. Still does for Ferrari

    6. how depressing that drivers are only thinking of going quicker & strategy rather than the actual racing.

      if the racing is good then the fans will keep watching, If the racing goes back to been as dull as it was when we last had refueling (which it will if that monstrosity ever comes back) then fans will turn off.

      been honest refueling alone is enough to turn me off, did not like it last time & dont want it back in the future & i would walk away from f1 if it ever did.
      fortunately it seems most fans have sense as the poll’s i see so far are mostly against its return.

      1. You would hope they would not be so stupid as to actually go through with refueling, but, they gave us double points.

        I repeat.

        Double points.

      2. Also how sad that they want back their cars on rails so they can enjoy going flat out threw corners with out having to control the car much.
        When they say their car now our easier they are lying. Their cars are harder to drive right now. They can’t just flat it and go. They have to really be careful how they drive. What is easier is the g-forces and nothing else.

    7. I wonder how the new aims for 2017 – faster cars, even more power and emissions and refuelling agrees with FIA president Todt recent activities concerning the “FIA action for Road Safety” , even connected with the UN? I can´t imagine the UN people will be happy about disavoving their efforts with that F1 revamp, as much as WEC already has set measures against higher velocity and Indy should do it after four consecutive crashes at Indy 500? As much as Jean Todt is committed to his Road Safety task (even so much he is slacking the reins in F1), I could imagine FIA will think twice at the WMSC about some of the plans, in first line the unnecessary, dangerous and expensive refuelling.

      1. The thing is, even with the accidents that have happened during the practise and qualifying sessions, the organisers of the Indy 500 are still taking about how, despite cutting the boost levels, they are still pushing for one of the fastest races ever. It begs the question of whether the organisers truly are trying to address the underlying issues with the cars when they are still openly trying to pursue records.

        As for the WEC, the ACO has actually not undertaken that many steps to try and reign in the cars, even though there have been a series of rather serious accidents in recent years – in fact, it’s barely over two weeks since Nakajima fractured a vertebrae and had to be ruled out from Le Mans thanks to a crash, and the ACO is taking no action at all despite the seriousness of his injuries.

    8. In 2004 Ferrari and Schumacher basically ran roughshod over the competition, winning 15 of the 18 races (including the ones Barrichello won) and the title was decided way before the final race. How could that have been a fun season?

      1. “…the most fun from a drivers’ point of view…”
        Given that they were the fastest F1 cars ever, I understand his view. What drivers enjoy and what fans enjoy are not necessarily the same.

        1. Exactly and that why we shouldn’t have drivers opinion as to how to make F1 cars. Drivers just like those cars because they were on rails going flat out threw corners.
          That might be enjoyable inside the cockpit but is boring if you are watching a race because the cars are so clued to the road they hardly have to work not lose them. Also it makes overtaking in corners even more impossible.

    Comments are closed.