I've been hoping they would get rid of refuelling for a while now. Since it's common for the teams to try and win the race in the pitstops.
Now they just need to get rid of the tyre changing during the race (except for punctures) and we'll be back to the drivers/teams having to overtake in order to win/score more points, etc...
Or just watch MotoGP and/or World Superbike. No refueling or tire changing business, just a sprint to the finish with more passing than you can shake a stick at.
Oh and on the point of "stupid rule changes ruining F1".. what a load of rubbish. If the FIA hadn't kept moving the goal posts every so often development in F1 would have stagnated decades ago. Technology advances much faster when the engineers etc are forced to be creative and use new ideas/techniques etc. In fact it's proven historically that technology advances are driven by change, not slowed by it.
Second fastest single-seaters are... surprise: Formula Nippons. Especially the new ones introduced for this year. Superleague cars are not even as fast as GP2 cars but nearly similar pace.
Didn't knew that. Must be because of better aerodynamics, because the Superleague cars put out 750hp, and thats about the same as an F1 car. But anyway, I still think there will be a time, when F1 isn't the pinnacle of motosport anymore.
Motegi was bit rubbish though, you have to admit (by MotoGP standards). I blame the rider aids (traction control is for girls no matter how many wheels or how much power you have)
Formula Nippons' 3.4 litre V8s put out only 600 (+ push to pass), yet the best time from winter tests at Fuji was something like 6 seconds off from best Q2 time in F1. I don't understand much about aerodynamics but I guess they're pretty efficient. At least looks crazy...
Being pinnacle is also about other stuff nothing to do with technology and even less with hp figures. Pinnacle of technology, that's different and debatable though.
I have to agree with you to a certain point, but I think most of what makes the F1 the pinnacle is the money thrown into it. But if they really want to cut the costs drastically, then there is only the hype about F1 left.
Traction control is a neccesity on MotoGP bikes. Without it they would be nearly impossible to ride. Of course the number of wheels matter. In a car the worst thats going to happen is that you'll spin. On a bike, if you spin up the wheels, not only do you risk lowsiding but you also risk being highsided. Being highsided at any speed is seriouly dangerous. Anyway, unless things have changed traction contol is only in effect in the lower gears.
To put it in to perspective..
Power of a MotoGP bike is approx 230bhp contact patch is little more than a credit card (46 cm sq). Lets be generous and say 60 cm sq. That's 3.8bhp per cm sq.
An F1 car develops about 800bhp and has a total conact patch of what? 320 cm sq (assuming 325mm width and 50mm longditudinal contact length). That's 2.5bhp per cm sq.
Then compare the actual grip.. the F1 car has a minium mass of 605kg. Lets assume half of it (in reality it will be more) is over the rear wheels. That's 300kg of mass on a 320 cm sq area (coeficient of friction ?? who knows lets just say 1 for the sake of the comparison) so friction force is proportional to 300x1 or 300. For a MotoGP bike the same calculation (with the same assumptions) works out to 110.
So to sum up.. bike has 1.5 times the force per area of contact patch and 0.36 times the grip levels. Making a force/grip ratio 4 times that of an F1 car.
All of the above assumes identical powertrain efficiency and gearing ratios of course. Anyone have any data on "at the wheel" torque figures for either F1 cars or MotoGP bikes??
So the day before they first used traction control they were impossible to ride, and now they're easy with less passing? Give me a break - if the riders are any good (and I believe they are somewhat) then they don't need traction control. Even if they had 1000hp and 10 sq.mm of contact patch, weighing 5 grammes and a coefficient of friction of 0.1
I just don't get how anyone can appreciate motorsports fully when the driver/rider doesn't have to worry about throttle control. Or braking when they have ABS. Or cornering when they have stability control. Or gear changing when they have paddles or auto.
MotoGP started to slide once it went away from 500cc 2 stroke. It was inevitable but even Rossi acknowledges they were the best and hardest bikes to master. Like all motorsports in recent years it has become somewhat sanitised
I said nearly people.. and I somewhat get the impression that you guys don't fully appreciate the delicacy of throttle control required already on such lightweight and powerful machines.. "just learn more throttle control" like it's that easy.
Of course people still highside etc but with the bike putting down it's full power in the lower gears out of slower corners you think there wouldn't be even more??
Sorry I have to laugh at some of the responses, if you think motorcycle racers are lacking in "cohonas" and that they implimented TC in MotoGP because they're a bunch of pansies (who lack throttle control) then you seriously know nothing about the sport. I suggest you all stick to car racing with it's 200m run offs, crumple zones and guys crying about not having the right visors for a race.
Well, with the same (or similar) power and the same (or similar) contact patches and the same (or similar) bike weights they used to manage just fine. TC is there for speed/consistency reasons, and as such merely detracts from the sporting spectacle.
And yes, it is just about "learning more throttle control". These riders aren't amateurs having a go, but paid professionals that are supposedly talented at racing high performance bikes. I would much rather see them paid to race high performance bikes rather than letting the electronics engineers do it for them.
Without Rossi it would be as bad as F1 if not worse
