Start, Spa-Francorchamps, 1993

Active suspension, 18-inch wheels mooted for 2017

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

F1F CSIn the round-up: Teams are considering bringing back active suspension systems which were banned over 20 years ago.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

F1 considers active suspension return (Autosport)

“The move is being considered for 2017, and could come in at the same time as a switch to 18-inch tyre rims.”

Start, Spa-Francorchamps, 1993Russian Auto Racers Hit by U.S. Sanctions Over Ukraine Crisis – Backer (Ria Novosti)

“Sauber Formula One test driver Sergei Sirotkin and Indy Car rookie Mikhail Aleshin are among dozens of mostly Russian auto racers whose careers could be threatened by U.S. and European sanctions related to the Ukraine crisis, an organisation that backs them financially said Monday.”

Sounds like F1 is on right track – Mosley (Reuters)

“I’d do pretty much what Jean [Todt] is doing, which is take no notice. Or pay lip service to the discussion – ‘Oh, that’s interesting, Bernie [Ecclestone]’ – but in the end take no notice because there’s nothing anybody can do, the regulations are fixed, nobody can change anything.”

Brazil president pledges thorough Petrobras probe (ABS-CBN)

“Brazil’s president on Monday promised authorities would carry out a thorough and complete probe of alleged money laundering at state oil giant Petrobras.”

Thanks to @Journeyer for the tip.

How CVC Has Made $8.2 Billion From Formula One Auto Racing (Forbes)

“Since CVC acquired F1 the teams have been paid a total of $3.7 billion in prize money which is nearly as much as the $4 billion that CVC has received from dividends and the sale of stakes in F1.”

Closing the gap to the top teams (Ferrari)

Engineering director Pat Fry: “We are naturally working as hard as we can on closing the gap to the top teams, with Mercedes having a reasonable lead over the rest of the field.”

Fernando Alonso: The family ties that bind Ferrari’s F1 star (CNN)

A lengthy interview with Fernando Alonso from two weeks ago which I didn’t see at the time but was picked up by some others websites yesterday. He says: “If you ask me right now… I am hungry for victories, hungry for success – I will tell you that two championships are not enough.”

Bahrain 2014 – race edit (F1)

Video highlights from the last race, including a little more footage of the aftermath of the Pastor Maldonado/Jean-Eric Vergne collision.

Singapore Airlines spreads wings into F1 (Reuters)

“Singapore Airlines Ltd (SIA) has been unveiled as the new title sponsor of the city-state’s Formula One race in September as the carrier bids to promote its brand to motor racing’s global television audience.”

Ferrari’s vanity unit on overdrive (ESPN)

“Di Montezemolo really ought to take a look in the mirror (I mean that, of course, in the metaphorical sense rather than the practical, with which he is well acquainted). Was it the Ferrari boss who pushed for the 2014 regulations to be changed from the proposed four-cylinder engine to the current V6? I do believe it was. And is it Montezemolo who, having signed up for the new package, is currently rubbishing F1 because his team can’t hack it? I do believe it is.”

Formula One’s Leadership Conundrum (Mark Gallagher)

“There is an inherent weakness in a Formula One team whose boss runs the risk of being removed whenever the results don’t come, even over the course of several seasons. It can take 3-5 years to drive significant change in a Formula One team, such is the time delay in bringing new organisational structures, systems, processes and technology into play. It is not the work of a moment, and is something Ferrari’s new boss Marco Mattiacci may wrestle with.”

Formula One alive and well in 2014 (Mercedes)

Toto Wolff: “Formula One is the pinnacle of automotive innovation. As such, it has a duty to push the boundaries of technology. The new regulations not only encourage this innovation but also make the sport more relevant to the direction in which the motoring industry is heading.”


18-inch Michelin tyres on a Ferrari F138

As F1 considers a switch to larger 18-inch wheel rims, here’s an image produced by Jeremy Hancox for F1 Fanatic last year showing how they might look.


Comment of the day

@Bullmello reckons the FIA handled the Red Bull appeal well:

When Red Bull started using the argument that directives are not regulations and they need not comply, it was akin to admitting they didn’t have much else to go on. Either the FIA is in charge of regulation compliance and enforcement, or not. As we can see, they are in charge.

I also think the FIA was very fair in this case, especially giving Red Bull the chance to comply during the race.

Also glad the call from Mercedes to penalise Red Bull further was ignored. The penalties incurred already were already severe enough and Red Bull has been in compliance since Australia as far as we know.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Andrewtanner, Solid, Braddersf1 and Rumfresh!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Ferrari substitute driver Nicola Larini landed himself in hot water on this day 20 years ago when he revealed to Italian journalists that his car was running a traction control system – such devices having been banned before the beginning of the 1994 season. Larini was standing in for the injured Jean Alesi at the Pacific Grand Prix.

Images © Williams/LAT, Ferrari/Ercole Colombo and Jeremy Hancox

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.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 124 comments on “Active suspension, 18-inch wheels mooted for 2017”

    1. Would be a shame for Aleshin if his career ended so prematurely! Does it not affect Kvyat as well or am I missing something?

      1. Kvyat is sponsored by Red Bull and his talent, I’m not sure it’d affect him.

      2. The article says that Aleshin and Sirotkin (among others) receive their financial backing from a project called SMP Racing – founded by a friend of Putin. It’s organisations such as this, deemed to be close to Putin, that are affected by these sanctions. Obviously, Kvyat has his career funded by Red Bull and so is unaffected by the sanctions.

      3. If they are good enough, someone else will support them and they’ll go on to have a career in F1. If they aren’t good enough and are only being backed because they are Russian, they will miss out on buying a seat. No loss for F1.

        1. Indeed, if these guys are really suffering from it, that only means that the sanctions are doing what they were targetted to do – make like that bit less comfortable for Putin’s club.

      4. Van der Garde and de Silvestro will be helped by that news, but Sirotkin’s team in FR3.5 won’t.. there’s already 5 cars missing there as is. There’s a lot of people trying for an Indycar seat but perhaps not all of them have enough money to make the difference..

    2. I’m not normally that bothered about big rims, but that mock-up with the 18s looks sweet :-)
      Petition to bring 18″ rims in for 2015? ;-)

      1. I would like to see both larger wheels and active suspension. Perhaps the propensity to filter down to passenger cars might make F1 more attractive to teams like BMW, Toyota, Porsche, etc. even if they use customer engines…

        1. Nathan Broussard
          16th April 2014, 0:28

          I agree. MotoGP has all kinds of crazy ECU magic and the racing is great. Technology and fast cars piloted by the best drivers in the world should be what F1 is all about.

      2. Todd (@braketurnaccelerate)
        16th April 2014, 0:32

        The rendering’s scale is off. Those are probably closer to 16 or 17″ rims than they are 18’s.

        1. @braketurnaccelerate Oh yeah wow, massive distortion! Without that [i]possible[/i] inch how on earth can we be expected to make a judgment…

      3. I want a petition for the opposite. Imagine a modern F1 car with F1 60’s suspension, only with active suspension that configuration could be minimized and that’s the point of it I understand. Much like Peter Windsor I much prefer the lotus 49 with the small rims that were not very common at the time and for as much as I loved the 60’s I’m happy F1 went for smaller rims.

      4. would make sense … with the ban of tire blankets it would be better if they went for larger rims sooner to reduce the warm-up gap.

        1. Makes sense, lower profile tyres.. less rubber to warm up.
          I can think of more interesting benefits running larger rims…
          More relevant to road car tyre technology.
          Less rubber, lower manufacturing cost.
          Smaller chance of punctures in racing incidents.
          Aero and cooling advantages.
          Maybe less marbles?

          But.. What’s the downsides?

          Would they be less durable?
          Would the ride be too firm without the current tyres shock absorbing effect?
          Would they maybe be more prone to punctures caused by debris on the track?

          Does anyone know? Im interested to hear from those with experience on this.

          1. Material savings would be pretty small given that the annual tyre production runs for F1 are pretty small (we’re talking about maybe 10,000 tyres a year if you add in pre and mid season testing), so I’d say that would have a negligible impact on cost.

            As for aerodynamics, the indication is that the tyres might actually end up being larger than the current 13 inch rim wheels in use, which would have a negative impact on aerodynamics (increasing the drag and turbulent wake of the cars). Aerodynamically, at least, you might end up in a worse situation rather than a better one.

            As for the heating time and marbles, my understanding is that those issues are more closely related to the structure of the tyre and the rubber compounds that are used, with the volume of air tending to be a secondary factor.

            As for the downsides, well, it would require a complete overhaul of the entire chassis – not only would it require a radical rethink in the suspension design, you would also have to substantially alter the wheel tethering system to reduce the risk of wheels being thrown about in a crash (which would alter the mounting system and thus the chassis design).

      5. bling bling

    3. Active suspension? A technical wonder, but may as well make F1 fully autonomous if that’s where we’re heading.

      1. @matt90 What do you mean autonomous? The drivers still have to find the limits of grip by themselves, I don’t think is as much of a driver aid as traction control or ABS, if they push too hard they will still crash.

        Besides active suspension is completely relevant to road cars and it could make the cars much faster, which is always good ;)

        1. I’m not convinced we’ll be seeing active suspension on the Ford Fiesta anytime soon :-P

          1. @raceprouk – You’d have probably said a couple of years ago you wouldn’t be convinced that we’ll see automatic parking on a Ford Focus any time soon… ;-)

            1. Autopark makes a lot of sense no matter the car. Active suspension, less so.

            2. Also, I can’t think of any possible reason for autopark being developed in F1 (unless it was part of a system to replace the driver completely).

        2. What do you mean autonomous? The drivers still have to find the limits of grip by themselves, I don’t think is as much of a driver aid as traction control or ABS, if they push too hard they will still crash.

          If you push too hard in a car with traction control or ABS you still crash too. If the car sets itself up for the corner then it certainly reduces how much the driver is finding the limits of grip.

          If it reduces the importance of the driver, then it is a small step towards being autonomous. Of course there are different levels. I believe Williams used to pre-programme their cars according to the circuit. That is certainly too far, and not really relevant for road use (at least until every road in the country/world is sufficiently plotted, presumably needing fairly precise information on corner radii and cambers). Active suspension which purely reacts to driver inputs and sensor feedback (loadings, slip angle etc.) wouldn’t be as bad as that, but I still think I would rather see it stay away from F1.

          1. Although to be fair, I’m not sure just how it would be if we saw active suspension independant from traction control

      2. Chris (@tophercheese21)
        16th April 2014, 0:45

        I think F1 should stay as far away from electronic driver aids as possible. It should be about the most skilled drivers having to actually drive their cars to the best of their ability.

        I think when things like active suspension, traction control, ABS etc. are in the sport, it allows the drivers more room for error, thus they can afford to relax.

        I’m glad F1 doesn’t currently have things like that.

        1. @tophercheese21 Using more technology in the cars doesn’t necessarily mean driver’s importance will be diminished.

          Indeed, if all they wanted was to reduce costs they could make a model to simulate what regular springs and dampers do, driving would be exactly as it is now, except that it would be much easier for the teams to change between set ups, obviously limited by the rules.

          However, I can also see the appeal of letting the teams do whatever they can to get maximum performance, but I understand the majority don’t want to see technology dominate, it’s a fine balance.

      3. A common reaction, but not intirely accurate IMO, and actually quite disrespecting to the drivers.

        Ask yourself this: You are in a F1 racing car and you just missed your breaking point by 10 meters…
        Which car would you rather be in:

        A 19xx car with steel brakes, no ABS, no driving aids with 150 meters to the corner and the prospect of going a bit wide for a less than perfect turn…

        Or a 20xx car with carbon fiber brakes, abs, esc, active suspension, active areo, all the driver aids you can think of, with 50 meters to go and the prospect of leaving the track at the corner as by now you have no chance of making it as your margin of error are all used up.

        Not advocating it as such, but adding driving aids and modern tech to f1 cars will shift the limits and any decent driver will take advantage of it thereby further reducing the margin of error.
        Having a good consistent driver becomes more important, not less.

        1. of leaving the track at the corner as by now you have no chance of making it as your margin of error are all used up.

          One without a decent run-off – albeit that’s a different matter altogether.

    4. Active suspension, ay? While they’re at it why not reintroduce ground effect, wider track and more aesthetically pleasing cars?

      Of course it’d be dangerously expensive route to head down. Oh well. Enough pipe dream fantasies from me.

      1. Wasn’t ground effect suggested as part of either the 2009 or 2014 regs to let cars follow each other closely but the idea was scrapped in favour of moveable wings (front wing in 2009 then DRS rear wings from 2011).

      2. I thought the same. Whilst I’m averse to taking some of the skill from the drivers (balancing weight transfer and so on), I did consider that this might be a way of introducing ground-effect safely, and maybe doing away with wings, making for closer racing again. Then again, performance would skyrocket. Cars would corner on rails, Spa’s Pouhon would be flat-out, and we’d be into G-suit territory. Braking zones would reduce, along with laptimes. The cars would be fantastic to watch, almost physics-defying, but the racing might suffer. Also, consider that any accident would be huge, and the tracks would need extensive work to make them safer. Many would probably be dropped. I’m not sure how I feel about it.

        1. Michael Brown (@)
          16th April 2014, 15:00

          If ground effects were tightly regulated so that a disturbance wouldn’t cause a horrific accident, they could work

          1. I would say that active suspension could even help out there, @lite992, because it would make it incredibly much easier to have the bottom exactly 10mm from the ground at all times!

      3. I guess active suspension being brought in to coincide with the bigger rims is to offset the loss of damping? Most of an F1 car’s suspension is now in that big tyre side-wall. With stiff suspension and big rims, that would be reduced to a small amount, a bit like in the GE days.

    5. On Mark Gallagher’s article, I think Mclaren’s approach seems to make the most sense. Eric Boullier worries about racing and this “other” person (currently Ron) worries about the commercial side of the business and running the operation itself. I do agree that one central figurehead is necessary and in Mclaren’s case, Ron is that figurehead.

      Looks like I’ll need to pick a up a new shaver this weekend.

      1. Merc also have settled with that system after losing their figurehead Ross Brawn. The two team principles are working two distinct and different roles:

        Toto Wolff = commercial
        Paddy Lowe = racing and development

    6. Hmmm does anybody else find it interesting that NOW they are talking about active suspension?? Something that Newey got down to the T in the williams car?? I think not… I think that now they are trying to bring active suspension back to make up for someone´s lack of talent maybe??
      To be honest, as much as active suspension is relevant to road going cars, it has no business in f1 and I say this because although it is the pinnacle of motorsports, F1 should really highlight a driver´s talent, not cover the lack of it!!

      1. Hmmm does anybody else find it interesting that NOW they are talking about active suspension?? Something that Newey got down to the T in the williams car??

        It was actually Patrick Head & not than Adrian Newey who handled the Williams active system, They had started developing it in 1988 few years before Adrian Newey joined the team in 1990.

        Newey had no input on the active system, He worked solely on the car’s design with regards to the aerodynamics.

        1. The first time Williams used active suspension
          was in Italy GP 1987 (Monza).
          N. Piquet won that race
          and I clearly remember an interview
          in which he said that they were very important.
          They didn’t use again that year because they didn’t want to give
          “an unfair vantage” to N.Piq. versus N. Mansell.
          Sorry for my english.

      2. @karter22 you see what you wanna see :)

        1. Some people are just so narrow minded that seems they have blinkers on them all the time…

      3. I think that now they are trying to bring active suspension back to make up for someone´s lack of talent maybe??

        It’s about cutting costs.

    7. Didn’t like the active ride when it was in f1 the first time so don’t want to see it come back in the future.

      Active ride is dangerous if/when it fails (Ask Zanardi) & most of the drivers who ran with it last time hated the way it took away a lot of the feel for what the car was doing.

      I also believe it will make the racing worse as your going to have car ride & therefore the downforce its producing optimized for every corner, This makes the cars more predictable which leads to less driver errors as the car is no longer upset by bumps or camber as it is today.
      The increase in cornering speeds which active ride will allow will also put greater emphasis on aero performance which will again have a negative effect on the racing.

      Your also going to like last time potentially have massive disparity between systems which could again like last time give 1 team a massive advantage over the rest, An advantage far greater than what we saw with double diffusers, exhaust blowing & this year the Mercedes engine.
      The Williams of 92/93 for instance was upto 2 seconds a lap faster than anything else at times in qualifying purely mostly on how much better there active ride system was compared to anyone else.

      The lower profile tyre idea I agree with, Active ride however I am firmly against!

    8. Active suspension? And what is the reasoning behind that?

      We’re three races in to a brand new radical set of regs and they’re looking at introducing another couple of pretty large changes. Moronic to say the least. Why not just wait it out, and see how these regs go. What’s with the obsession of constant tweaking??

      1. I think that if they go for bigger rims and smaller side walls there will be less
        deformation (i.e. adaptation) in the tyre. They will want to make up for the corresponding loss in grip by putting more effective adaptation in the suspension system, hence active

        Given cost cutting one may still wonder “why” — it seems to be an insurance policy against
        incompetent try manufacture since the tyre will be easier to make?

      2. @timi No they are not looking to make a couple of pretty major changes 3 races into this season. These concepts are just being proposed as things to consider, and may not even happen. Or they may, but down the line…not this year or next at least. So there is time for everyone to digest the current regs and see where it has taken F1 once the teams’ learning curves have smoothed out.

        1. @Robbie You know what I meant, pal. No need to be pedantic.

          1. Sorry, man…didn’t mean to imply you were saying changes would happen 3 races in…just meant that 3 races in I don’t think they are looking to make changes…only discuss the future…ie. so I wouldn’t worry about them not seeing how these new regs go.

            Sounds like they are just continuing to discuss ways to cut costs given that they can’t agree to how to cap them, and I guess the idea behind the 18″ rims is just to bring them up to speed with other racing series, and with many domestic cars that have had bigger and bigger rims put on them as factory equipment over the last decade or so.

            And who knows…perhaps once they do digest the current regs, as you would ask them to do, maybe changes will be in order. But I’m with you that they shouldn’t be constant.

    9. soundscape (@)
      16th April 2014, 2:30

      Could someone please give a non-technical/ELI5 explanation of active suspension versus what they currently use?

      1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
        16th April 2014, 2:42

        As simple as I understand it, the active suspension keeps the car leveled horizontally all the time. You see in movies that when a car turns very fast, one of the tyres or two of them leave the ground. You see F1 cars jump in high chicanes. Well, active suspension reduces a lot of that, so the car keeps going at very high speed in corners.

        1. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
          16th April 2014, 11:12

          @omarr-pepper – Cars three-wheeling into apexes is certainly an overt example of where active suspension helps, but it’s utility is much broader than that. In essence, suspension is a question of lateral roll versus tyre contact, so with current suspension, where the suspension is passive, softer springs would see tyres retain better contact with the road, but will introduce lateral roll, whereas stiff suspension will eradicate roll but potentially see tyre contact reduced over bumps and cambered apexes. In 2009-11, McLaren had a culture of lateral stiffness, which often saw them picking up the inside front under load into the apexes of corners.

          Essentially, active suspension cures the roll versus contact conundrum, with software governing the suspension’s characteristics in each corner, thus balancing the car and ensuring tyre contact in tandem with ensuring the car doesn’t flop away from the apex with lateral roll. Hope that helps @soundscape

          1. good answer , and i support that idea that AS should return , wouldnt be bad if it would running 2014 but that ups the tabs on total development and this stage it would push the expenses up

      2. Mercedes’ FRIC system is all about having a passive alternative to the active suspension.

    10. Just like aircraft I imagine we’lll see F1 drones someday. Cars not limited by the abilities of the driver to drive them, their endurance or abilities to handle Gs. It will save on driver salaries and costs for survival cells and enclosed cockpits. This will showcase a companies ability to build a fully autonomous car that will allow it’s passengers to not have to try to deal with the mundane task of driving while they text and interface with their friend and families on Facebook.

      1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
        16th April 2014, 3:05

        Or it can complain with the reallity TV format F1 is trying to take now and in the future. Do you imagine if FIA organizes a Xbox or PS4 contest and the winner of every round (on Saturdays) gets the chance to drive a drone on Sunday against the real drivers? It could be the most unsportive stuff, but I’m sure it would rock the ratings…

        1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
          16th April 2014, 3:05

          Oops, not coplain, comply

          1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
            16th April 2014, 3:06

            oops again, not coplain, not complain, but comply

      2. I fully expect a drone series in around 10 years or so, but it will probably spin off Formula E. Personally, I think it would be very interesting so long as it is distinct from F1.

        Teams would get limited tests per year to do some machine learning at the start of the season. Wet races would be pretty interesting. Would be great.

        1. I reckon it’d make a pretty interesting Garage 56 entry for Le Mans. Allegedly they’ll be trying out driverless cars in Milton Keynes in the next couple of years, so it’s far from science fiction, and probably something a lot of manufacturers would be interested in exploring.

    11. ESPN know nothing, it wasn’t montezemolo that pushed for V6, it was every team, you couldn’t make the engine a structural part otherwise.

      1. They know more then you apparently because Renault wanted flat fours and Ferrari pushed for v6. Cosworth dropped out

        1. Newey was against the 4cyl engine as it wouldn’t be a structural part… as for whether or not renault wanted it, I do not recall.

          1. I do remember, LDM was specifically against it, Mercedes said we might be moving away from v8s too soon and Renault threatened to walk away from the sport if we didnt go to an efficiency formula with expanded ERS and flat fours. Everyone comprimised and thats why we have v6 with ERS

        2. Cosworth didn’t drop out. They have a V6. No one wanted to use them.

    12. I know it doesn’t matter much, but that bit about the investigation in Petrobras is a gigantic joke.
      She would be promising to investigate a corruption scheme that has survived for decades and in the last 10 years has diverted billions upon billions to the point that a monopolistic oil company is loosing money hand over fist (this is probably the first time in history this has happened in this scale).
      So yeah, that investigation is gonna be awesome. It will be done in the year 2000never.

    13. It’s interesting that Russia is getting sanctioned, when there’s a civil war in Ukraine, started by NATO funded Ukrainian extremists and foreign NATO operatives. Seems NATO wants to have a base in Ukraine to continue its attempt of surrounding Russia. They needed to create a civil war in order to have an excuse to react. Putin’s only mistake was that he didn’t see it soon enough and interfered before the whole peaceful protest turned into a daily armed conflicts. That have now turned into a civil war, with more NATO operatives and Ukrainian fascist groups trying to exterminate all who threaten their plan.

      1. Interesting indeed when Russia sent in troops and took Ukrainian land, against international laws and against agreements that they had signed. It’s only thanks to the restraint of the Ukraine authorities that that situation didn’t develop into full blown war between the Ukraine and Russia.

      2. In other news, F1.

        1. In F1 terms, I’m feeling like it’s now quite likely the Russian GP will be cancelled this year. Could be wrong, but it just feels that way to me.

          1. I hope it is cancelled.

      3. Aah just switch the Words NATO and Russia in your text and we should have a correct answer . And the part of not seeing it coming was that it would have seemed strange that in some part when the protests calmed down, suddenly would NATO troops pore into UKraine like …what ?? europe respects sovereignty but Russia does what it wants terrosrust querilla way and with hidden tactics and preparals and then pops you out with it .

    14. Moving to larger wheels and tyres doesn’t really bother me. Indy use 18 inch wheels and I think sports cars do to and I barely notice them in those series.

    15. I don’t know what’s all the anger at active suspension coming from like it was some kind of witchcraft and “cars might as well drive themselves” or “it was bad then it will be bad now” kind of comments. Fact is in the 80s-90s F1 was just experimenting with active suspension with technology that seems like stone age when you compare it to today. I am all for driver input, but this aversion to technology has got to stop. There is more advanced technology in terms of ride control on an expensive saloon than in an F1 car.

      If you ask me, more electronic grip, less aerodynamics. Also less tire conservation because the car would take care of that for you. Would that be a bad thing? Food for thought.

      1. I’m all for it, @eljueta. I think the F1 community is clinging too much on the past about how it used to be….

        I guess they forget the ICE used to be in the front of the car too.

      2. Also less tire conservation because the car would take care of that for you.

        Yep, I definitely think that’d be bad. Yes, there’s more technology on road cars these days than in F1, but F1 is also about driver talent. That’s not a concern in road cars. If you’re all for driver input, why do you want technology that reduces the importance of driver input?

        1. @Metallion because it’s not representative of reality anymore. A car nowadays can go very fast around a series of corners in the hands of anyone because of electronics. Which isn’t to say that if Vettel got its hands on my car he wouldn’t be several times faster than me.Making a car that has no electronics in it just for the sake of artificially “rewarding the best driver” is just castration of development for the sake of it.

          F1 always worked like that to level the playing field, slash the team with a technological advance. Happened with ground effect, happened with active suspension. The stand in 2013 was a car that if it wasn’t built in carbon fiber was more akin to a big go-kart with a V8.

          If F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, should be the pinnacle of technology. If you don’t want aerodynamic because it makes overtaking too hard, cut it and add grip with active suspension. The problem never was making it too easy for the driver, it was an uneven grid. And that can happen at anytime.

          1. @eljueta
            This is racing we’re talking about though. I don’t want to see racing cars that can go fast around corners in the hands of anyone. I understand your point of view, I support development through F1, but I’d rather see it in other areas, such as engine development. I’d be happy to see a cost cap plus opening up the rules to allow for more development. But I don’t support things which assist the drivers, which require less driver skill. Technology that assist drivers don’t add anything to the racing.

            I think there are also other reasons for banning certain technology in F1, such as costs and safety. I think it’s quite safe to say that it’d increase costs, which is something that F1 can’t afford. In some cases technology could also increase the risks.

          2. If you don’t want aerodynamic because it makes overtaking too hard, cut it and add grip with active suspension.

            Active ride would not see a reduction in aerodynamics, It would see an increase in aerodynamics.

            The whole point of active ride is to keep the car at the optimum ride height & as level as possible at all times to maximize the aerodynamics. And the increased cornering speeds possible with active ride puts more emphasis on aerodynamics because you need the extra aero grip to keep the car stable.

            It would also likely have a negative effect on the racing, Partly because the increased cornering speeds putting more emphasis on aero but also because its likely going to see a further reduction in braking distances which brings about less opportunity to outbrake someone.
            It also will makes the cars far more stable which will see a big reduction in the possibility of drivers making mistakes which also removes some overtaking possibilities.

            1. How would it increase aerodynamics? It would make the current aerodynamic solutions more efficient, which could lead to increased laptimes or allow for a greater cut in aerodynamic load, leading to less problems in overtaking.

              That’s my understanding but feel free to correct me, I’m no expert in the matter.

            2. @eljueta
              My understanding is that the active suspension, as it’d make the car more stable, would allow for more extreme/effiicient aerodynamic solutions.

              You’re also kind of answering your own question:

              How would it increase aerodynamics? It would make the current aerodynamic solutions more efficient

            3. @Metallion

              I understood increased aerodynamics as increased aerodynamic loads, so different interpretation. So how is more efficient aerodynamics a bad thing?

          3. Making a car that has no electronics in it just for the sake of artificially “rewarding the best driver” is just castration of development for the sake of it.

            No, it’s to maintain a driver’s championship. where the ‘best’ driver is still rewarded for being such. I think active suspension and other systems would be spectacular. But I also think it would diminish the effect of the driver, and that should be prevented as much as a non-spec series can.

            1. The only way you reward the best driver in an isolated fashion is when you have two equally good drivers in equal cars. Like Hamilton and Rosberg this year for example. The car always factors in. I understand people’s concerns about becoming a “drone” formula, but I also think that:

              1 – Most electronic/aerodynamic aids were banned because they gave one team the advantage, that means we never actually saw competition with them in use.

              2 – Formula 1 uses a mechanical suspension solution with 13 inch wheels so that the tires do a lot of damping work. This is exclusive to F1 and serves no other purpose than itself. Means its money spent on research that goes to the trash bin, so to speak.

              3 – Without electronic aids we’ve seen a guy in a car winning it 4 years in a row. And people still don’t think he’s the best driver on the grid. So…what else do we need to ban?

            2. This is exclusive to F1 and serves no other purpose than itself. Means its money spent on research that goes to the trash bin, so to speak.

              So? It is nice when F1 tech filters down, and sometimes road relevancy is necessary to keep manufacturers interested (like the new PUs). But besides that, why does F1 need to be doing some grand service? If people want road relevancy, that’s what endurance racing has far more typically been for.

    16. I’m not a Ferrari fan, but this is getting a bit ridiculous. Why has this turned into a schoolyard bullying of di Montezemolo? Instead of banding together like a bunch of punks and ridiculing the man, why not (since no one really knows his true motivation) give him the benefit of the doubt, and take his words into consideration? To all those who are nailing him for offering his opinion, saying that it’s detrimental to F1, please remember that Ferrari played a big part in making this sport what it is. I, for one, appreciate that they care enough about it to want it to be the best it can be, whether I agree with their perspective or not. And no, as much as some believe that it’s all about them trying to screw everyone else over, we don’t really know, it’s not fact, and it just shows what a jaded spin those individuals choose to put on things under the guise of being ‘realistic’. One exciting race doesn’t make F1 perfect. Let’s make it even better :)

      1. Yes, lets.

      2. If only Luca had your optmism ;) I’m not a Ferrari fan per say but as an F1 fan I do admire them greatly. There’s no denying that so far this year he has only been critical of the sport due to Ferrari’s shortcomings. Do what Domenicali always says and work hard (I like him) instead of negative politicking the sport which is your bread and butter.

        1. @grez76 I do wonder whether Dominicali could have lasted a bit longer if he had followed Monty’s line of blaming everything on the technical regulations rather than admitting that Ferrari needed to do a better job themselves. Unfortunately at Ferrari politics seems to be the preferred solution rather than engineering (at least it’s potentially cheaper I suppose)

          1. @jerseyf1 He may have lasted longer but at what cost? Blaming others?!? For me I’m glad he disassociated himself from something he didn’t have control of. He was top brass but it is up to each pawn to tow the line and he was probably too nice to be kicking butts on a regular basis. Good luck to the best (on record) forza.

          2. @jerseyf1 – seems to be working out well for them eh? They haven’t had the fastest car for years!

      3. Why has this turned into a schoolyard bullying of di Montezemolo?

        Because he’s dragging F1 through the mud for his own political means.

      4. “Please remember that Ferrari played a big part in making this sport what it is.”

        Indeed – and because it’s not working out for him now, he’s moaning about it. The issues he is mentioning were all relevant before testing started. Everyone knew the engines would be quieter (they are actually louder than most expected). Everyone knew we’d have fuel saving. etc etc

        Why did he not mention it then and instead, wait until it became apparent that Ferrari had a slow car?

        1. Indeed. What makes Ferrari’s position worse is the unique position where they; and only they; are stuck with the Ferrari engine. It must drive (get it?) them mad that the likes of Red Bull, McLaren, Lotus if they so choose, can up sticks and go to another engine manufacturer. Seeing teams like Williams and Force India finishing ahead of you on the back of what could be nothing other than the dumb luck of being in the right place at the right time (Merc power unit) must be very disheartening for all involved at Maranello.

    17. “…among dozens of mostly Russian auto racers whose careers could be threatened by U.S. and European sanctions related to the Ukraine crisis..”
      Do not take politics to the sport and let them do what they know the best!

      1. It’s just another attempt to score points.

        Frankly, if the choice is Sirotkin driving in F1 or a country not being illegally invaded, I think I’d have to go with the latter!

        1. If we were to strike off any country guilty of illegally invading another, we’d definitely have no US or British GP.

          1. I’m a US citizen and I agree with this sentiment.

    18. I don’t know where Jean Todt would be without such sage words of advice from Max Mosley? I’m sure JT really appreciates them!

      If only there was someone around to offer similar pearls of wisdom to Max’s morally bankrupt bearing that he proceeded to steer F1 along when he was at the helm. Oh wait a minute… there was, multi-national companies, entire countries and thousands of fans calling for his immediate resignation!

      I actually have a great deal of confidence in Todt’s motives for this formula and he is doing an outstanding job without any blindingly obvious advice.

      1. BTW, to put it mildly, I hate Mosley. I just really wish I could curse on this site, maybe just a one-off joker curse reserved for special circumstances? I would be satisfied with that, what say you Keith?

      2. Convenient to ignore the huge amount of work Mosley did to improve motorsport safety, isn’t it?

        1. And road safety.
          A large amount of the work to improve road car safety with the euro ncap crash test’s etc… was done thanks to Max.

          Max actually did a hell of a lot of good for F1 & world MotorSport in many areas & there are many drivers which may not be here today if it wasn’t for Max’s safety push.

        2. When you are paid to do a job then you should produce some work. Producing work does not put you above reproach. He obviously felt he was and continued to drag F1’s image through the mud when he should of stepped down.

          As for promoting safety, the actual work done to improve safety was completed by many individuals which Mosley is more than prepared to take credit for.

    19. i am the only one that think the race edit is boring… so much things happened on track and half of the video is faces…

      1. Boring and/or frustrating. Just like the live feed where, for example, Button might be in a tense battle with someone, pressing hard, just about to arrive at the corner, can’t wait to find out who will outbreak who. So the director cuts to a view of Jessica Whatsherface looking mildly interested. AAAAARGGGHHHH!!!!!!!

      1. Does the rear wing need replacing every pit stop?

      2. If you sleep in can you use DRS for a quicker shave?

    20. In the article it says that this electronic gizmo would be “more cost effective” than the current mechanical or passive suspension at achieving the optimum set-up. Well, I am in doubt regarding about that point since it’s very over simplified that setting the mechanical suspension it’s harder that setting it electronically.
      But hey, I welcome the idea: it will make the cars faster, and probably it will widen the gap between the best drivers and the rest.

    21. As someone said already, I think those rims are more like 16-17 inch. They look pretty nice, but I don’t want them in F1. They should stick to the current size. Thing is, the small size rim is like a trademark of F1, visually of course. Changing it, for me, means F1 dies a little bit more as a unique sport.

      1. I want to go monster truck now! How about massive wheels that prevent any significant damage when Maldonado plows into you? Gutierrez could do a couple of flips and the retake the Venezualen cruncher… awesome.

        1. LOL! You said it: MONSTER TRUCK ! So, won’t be F1 anymore.

    22. I love it… Only in F1 can active suspension be brought in to simplify things and reduce costs! :D

      1. Yeah it is pathetic really isn’t it? This is further indication if any more was needed that the strategy group is there simply to represent the interests of a minority.
        Also I laughed out loud at the Forbes article implying that the teams have been winners since the CVC take over of F1. @petebaldwin

    23. If they want to simplify and cut costs, it would make a lot more sense to introduce the use of spec suspension, steering, and gearbox parts for all teams.

      1. It’s called GP2.

        1. I’m looking for the ‘like’ button here … :)

    24. 18 inch rims look daft. What next? Neon underlights?

      1. too fast.

        too furious.

      2. Yes please, and ridiculous roof scoops that do nothing and some massive stereos in the back plus a massive tv and a beer cooler.

    25. It always seemed contradictory to the point of impossibility to simultaneously look at cost cutting whilst also looking to become more road-relevant with the development of new technologies.

      Surely you pick one or the other. Thankfully they’ve gone with the option that gives F1 the chance to remain as the pinnacle of motorsport rather than to further become the watered down version it was (and still is) threatening to become.

      This is a step forward.

      With the current structure of the payments out of F1, this makes it hard on the smaller teams but hopefully that can be re-worked so that the rewards are fairer and the influence on decision making is fairer too.

    Comments are closed.