Unpopular Motorsport Opinions

[Jimlaad43]

All of these "my solution will fix F1" posts are so shortsighted though. How is changing the seating position going to address the problems with inconsistent stewarding, track limits, dirty air, F1 staying as the fastest series, engineers designing a car faster than anyone else, an overinflated calendar, too many street circuits and the blatant money grab from FOM. How does adjusting the seating position to something which makes the cars slower for no benefit and worsens safety (congratulations you have just made the roll hoop double the height it currently is) a 100% mandatory solution to......what problem?

This comment just reads like a salty GT fan who thinks GT3 is the only series worth watching. Have you ever actually looked in a GT car and seen the driving position? Driver is low and slung forwards, almost like how the lower and more sat back a driver is is better in every way for racing.

What purpose does this change serve? It's not even an Unpopular Opinion, it's just Factually Wrong because there is no science or reasoning in the argument - let alone a reason why it is a problem that needs solving. Go back to the drawing board and give us reasons - with something to back it up - as to why the driving position is the biggest problem in Single-seater racing and how making the chest and head a larger target for flying debris or tyre walls is going to improve consistency in the stewards room and the necessity for races in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Sprint Races?

 

[Carbonox]

Probably not truly unpopular, but this is the best "soapbox" kinda thread out here that I know of, so...

I really hate the name "Mobility Resort Motegi", mainly because it makes me think of mobility scooters, not high level motorsports, but also because of the slight implication that moving away from the Twin Ring moniker is the last nail in the coffin for the still abandoned oval track.

 

[Jimlaad43]

IIRC the oval was damaged in the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake, with the surface apparently covered in small "waves", unsuitable for Oval Racing. However, that was 12 years ago and it's nothing a good full resurfacing couldn't fix. The problem really is that NASCAR and Indycar don't want a race in Japan, and as there's literally no other series out there that makes rebuilding an Oval worth it, it's just not worth it. Rockingham in the UK closed in 2018 despite being a successful club racing circuit. It's just another example of American sports just not being sustainable outside of America due to the travel costs for American series' and the fact that nobody outside of America cares about their sports - at least not enough for them to be viable outside of the US.

 

[sillybilly]

All of these "my solution will fix F1" posts are so shortsighted though. How is changing the seating position going to address the problems with inconsistent stewarding, track limits, dirty air, F1 staying as the fastest series, engineers designing a car faster than anyone else, an overinflated calendar, too many street circuits and the blatant money grab from FOM. How does adjusting the seating position to something which makes the cars slower for no benefit and worsens safety (congratulations you have just made the roll hoop double the height it currently is) a 100% mandatory solution to......what problem?

This comment just reads like a salty GT fan who thinks GT3 is the only series worth watching. Have you ever actually looked in a GT car and seen the driving position? Driver is low and slung forwards, almost like how the lower and more sat back a driver is is better in every way for racing.

What purpose does this change serve? It's not even an Unpopular Opinion, it's just Factually Wrong because there is no science or reasoning in the argument - let alone a reason why it is a problem that needs solving. Go back to the drawing board and give us reasons - with something to back it up - as to why the driving position is the biggest problem in Single-seater racing and how making the chest and head a larger target for flying debris or tyre walls is going to improve consistency in the stewards room and the necessity for races in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Sprint Races?

Why so serious?

The entire post is based on assumption or I missed where I said we didn’t need to fix all the other things wrong with the mess that F1 is now.

Your tone of self-righteous all-knowing and narrow-minded intolerance to other‘s perspective or opinions is typical of toxic culture evident throughout f1 organisation, media, pundits and punters. That could be one of the biggest problems with F1.

Your "fact rant" seems useless to me other than to put down and offend another forum user and that just seems wrong.

What purpose...? I think I covered it in my original post, but I can elaborate... I am not sure I should put in the effort...

Race car design evolution has over many years for many years adjusted the seating position of drivers for PERFORMANCE NOT SAFETY reasons and in a particularly extreme case in formula one. The goal is performance due centre of gravity and aerodynamics but this compromises the driver safety as it has trade offs that make driver access in and out of vehicle more difficult and it compromises driver vision.

You might not be away that driver vision has a significant role in the safety of operation of any motor vehicle. It is not hard to use an "internet search" to find significant research evidence etc

The Role of Driver Vision in Road Safety - TrafficInfraTech Magazine

The key elements of the driving process are driver, vehicle, and driving environment in which the driver plays the pivotal role. The human eyes provide vital information about visual behaviour. Studying the driver’s gaze behaviour is important to improve driving safety conditions and...

trafficinfratech.com

I'm sure we have seen some clumsy collisions since they have bigger front tyres and I am sure there have been some comments from drivers complaining about visibility since.

Another interesting assumption is that raising the drivers point of view needs to create a larger target for flying debris etc - when logically the vehicle body work and Halo design can be adapted such that the risk exposure is moved and there is no need for the driver to be any more exposed....

The compromise on safety for the benefit of performance is cancelled out if all the designs are the same, therefore just lift the driver make adjustments to designs for safety as needed and improve the packaging of the car etc.

I believe it's currently arbitrarily defined in the rules the allowed position for the drivers, so they can easily arbitrarily change that to make the cars look better and be safer for the drivers.

The main reason to "fix" the driving position, is because it just kind of looks stupid and as if it is for flying a plane of spaceship.

Can you find any research that a lower lying down position has benefit for safety?
I do not believe that is the purpose, and in fact is the opposite as I have explained.

 

[Tired Tyres]

F1 should have drivers not pilots, cars not zero altitude flying machines...

I think they should get rid of the feet in the air driving position and flatten the floor of the car.

Make the cars have a flat floor and lift the driver a couple of inches so the feet and be on the 'floor'...

• driver can have better visibility forward that will be safer.
• if the drivers' back is a little more vertical the overall length of the car should be able to be shortened.

The only negatives are slight raised center of gravity and aerodynamic compromise of more front area but these should be pretty minor.

Good idea. Two drivers in WEC got broken backs because of the lay down driving position. They changed the rules so the driver is more upright.

Not sure how well it will work with modern formula cars.

 

[Anathema]

IIRC the oval was damaged in the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake, with the surface apparently covered in small "waves", unsuitable for Oval Racing. However, that was 12 years ago and it's nothing a good full resurfacing couldn't fix.

I've seen so many conflicting reports on the condition of the oval that I honestly don't know who to believe anymore (or even to trust what has been said) but given they were using the road course for the Indy demonstration runs for the Honda Festival this year it might need more than a resurfacing at this point. I don't know if it was as bad as what happened to Hi-Land Sendai although that was damage to the pit buildings and timing/scoring equipment rather than the track itself, but the most use the oval seems to get now are for the parades and extra parking space.

 

[sillybilly]

I really hate the name "Mobility Resort Motegi", mainly because it makes me think of mobility scooters, not high level motorsports, but also because of the slight implication that moving away from the Twin Ring moniker is the last nail in the coffin for the still abandoned oval track.

I see your points, and at least on the 'mobility' word side I understand but I think hate is a bit of a harsh or severe word.

This is the English name for a facility in a non-English country that has its own culture and language and I think it might be worth considering relaxing your opinion a little here to allow room for some language translation. I support this counter-opinion with points where mobility is used in Japan regarding cars or racing :

1. Suzuka grand prix tickets are sold from mobilitystation website and according to the internet "operated by Honda Mobilityland, a subsidiary of Honda Motor Co".
2. Tokyo Auto Show is now become know as Japan Mobility Show.

As for the additional dislike based on it looking like the abandoned oval staying abandoned you can keep that - although maybe keep in mind that the name mobility might really have a bit of a different meaning or context when it has been translated and should not make you think of mobility scooters...

it's nothing a good full resurfacing couldn't fix.

Is this an option or fact?
If an opinion is it unpopular, or on the counter as a popular one?
Do you have a source for the information, or some research to substantiate?

 

[Liquid]

Edit: Wrong thread.

 

[Tornado]

I haven't seen someone try to police an Unpopular Opinion thread this hard since the days of people trying to insist the first generation BreezFrees being a slow car with a crappy engine was actually a benefit.

 

[MagpieRacer]

Good idea. Two drivers in WEC got broken backs because of the lay down driving position. They changed the rules so the driver is more upright.

Not sure how well it will work with modern formula cars.

It wouldn’t work really, raising the drivers up would mean the side and front crash structures and rollover hoops would need to be raised, the air intake would then need to be moved or enlarged, the halo would need to be raised, then all that’s happening is the current F1 cars end up being taller, slower, less efficient and would look dumb. Works in WEC/prototypes because they’re enclosed so don’t need to worry too much about a majority of those issues, they can shift the driving around the cockpit without massively impacting the crash structures or designs.

 

[sillybilly]

It wouldn’t work really,

Sure it could work, Formula 1 is all about engineering and solutions - they could easily solve any of these problems - they re-develop and re-test the crash structures every seasons. if the driver safety cell was shorter there might even be more space for front impact crash structures etc... They could easily transition the change over a number of seasons to incrementally evolve to solution that would be safer.

It would remain subjective on the looks but I think it would look better, the casual audience probably would not notice if the driver seat was 50mm up and the halo and roll hoop 100mm higher - that distance is 5% of the gargantuan 5m+ length of current cars...

Even if the length of the car was shortened to less than 5m with improved packaged it would be a better proportion to me.

I'm not suggesting they should be making the cars massively tall and a massive, however, perhaps they should be adding ride height for manufacturer relevance of the Aston DBX and Ferrari Purosange etc.

less efficient and would look dumb

I reckon the 1990-1992 cars looked great, maybe it doesn't need to be as high as that - but I'm sure they could come up with the halo and modern safety that would be far better than the current cars.

 

[Tired Tyres]

It wouldn’t work really, raising the drivers up would mean the side and front crash structures and rollover hoops would need to be raised, the air intake would then need to be moved or enlarged, the halo would need to be raised, then all that’s happening is the current F1 cars end up being taller, slower, less efficient and would look dumb. Works in WEC/prototypes because they’re enclosed so don’t need to worry too much about a majority of those issues, they can shift the driving around the cockpit without massively impacting the crash structures or designs.

Your argument for not doing it means a possible driver in a wheel chair. Ask yourself what's more important. Redesigning a car (done most years) or an unnecessary risk to a driver.

 

[MagpieRacer]

Your argument for not doing it means a possible driver in a wheel chair. Ask yourself what's more important. Redesigning a car (done most years) or an unnecessary risk to a driver.

Not really 🤔. Given the comparative lack of those incidents in F1 resulting in broken backs vs how many times it’s happened in WEC and GT racing indicates that it isn’t an issue in F1. There have been enough violent crashes in F1 for that to have shown itself to be an issue and it isn’t.

The only open wheel racing car incidents I can think of, certainly in the modern era of racing, that resulted in a spinal injury is Sophia Floersch at Macau, who was launched by a sausage kerb over the barriers backwards at 150+mph into a stand and Abbie Eaton at COTA being launched also hy a sausage kerb.

 

[Grand Prix]

I'm curious about what designs they would come up with if modern Formula One cars were required to have the engine mounted in the front.

 

[Liquid]

I would imagine something close to a delta.

 

[MagpieRacer]

Craig Scarborough did a mock up a while back in MS Paint.

 

[Liquid]

Sorry but that's a terrible concept. I doubt you'd still have the airbox where it is now if the engine was in front of the driver or even have an airbox. I doubt you'd have the same general look that we have now at all. I maintain you'd get something closer to a delta shape like the Northrop-Grumann B-2 Spirit bomber, just with the engine and cockpit reversed.

The late front-engined cars of the 1950s could still become cigar tubed like the actual 1960s cars became but if wings came in and the engines were still at the front, I'd imagine the whole car would become one giant wing with cuts in the bodywork to retain the nominal classification as an 'open-wheeler'.

 

[sillybilly]

What if they used a front axle motor-generator unit, like the Gen3 formula e car except use it for traction. Use it all the time or potentially in a push to pass mode etc.

What if they simplified the internal combustion unit and mounted it transversely in the chassis to reduce the wheelbase and package the car more efficiently? Maybe only 4 or 3 cylinder in V or in-line configurations, maybe drop the turbos if they have the torque fill from the electrics, but really the turbo efficiency and torque is probably hard to give up.

 

[MagpieRacer]

What if they used a front axle motor-generator unit, like the Gen3 formula e car except use it for traction. Use it all the time or potentially in a push to pass mode etc.

What if they simplified the internal combustion unit and mounted it transversely in the chassis to reduce the wheelbase and package the car more efficiently? Maybe only 4 or 3 cylinder in V or in-line configurations, maybe drop the turbos if they have the torque fill from the electrics, but really the turbo efficiency and torque is probably hard to give up.

2026 will see more simple power unit regulations, still the 1.6l Hybrids but dropping complex things like the MGU-H whilst tripling the output of the MGU-K. Although battery size won't be increased so the max output will be available for less time potentially and be more challenging to drive along with the possible return of turbo lag due to how it will be set up.

 

[Greycap]

Sorry but that's a terrible concept. I doubt you'd still have the airbox where it is now if the engine was in front of the driver or even have an airbox. I doubt you'd have the same general look that we have now at all. I maintain you'd get something closer to a delta shape like the Northrop-Grumann B-2 Spirit bomber, just with the engine and cockpit reversed.

In a way it has been done. Modern prototype racers are nothing but formula cars with a closed cockpit and just enough bodywork to not be called open wheel, as anyone who has seen one without the panels attached will agree. Now Nismo actually turned it all around with the ill-fated GT-R LM, put the engine in front and the driver at the back. I'd imagine a front engined F1 would look something like this in principle, with an open cockpit, wider rear tyres and the radiators in sidepods.

 

[Grand Prix]

In a way it has been done. Modern prototype racers are nothing but formula cars with a closed cockpit and just enough bodywork to not be called open wheel, as anyone who has seen one without the panels attached will agree. Now Nismo actually turned it all around with the ill-fated GT-R LM, put the engine in front and the driver at the back. I'd imagine a front engined F1 would look something like this in principle, with an open cockpit, wider rear tyres and the radiators in sidepods.

With a cowling over the engine and side-mounted radiators that could look surprisingly elegant. Or perhaps it shouldn't be that surprising, since there are many examples of cars and aircraft commonly regarded as aesthetically pleasing that had their engine in the front.

Craig's concept was a very low effort. There would be no need for an airbox since a hole in the front of the nose (or wherever else they place the opening) would suffice. I think it would be a space-efficient package with the crash structure also wrapping around the engine. This would allow for a shorter wheelbase and shorter overall length. They could leave the gearbox in the back.

I was expecting more negative responses TBH.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Speed and spectacle is more important than sound. If your category has these things, people are going to watch it no matter what.

 

[Liquid]

I read that Steiner brought it to Gene's attention that the combination of the Ferrari engine and Dallara chassis wasn't going to work, to which Gene disagreed. Perhaps the two kept butting heads and instead of listening to the guy on the front lines as it were, Gene took upon himself to oust him?

Just a guess with absolutely nothing to go off, but this certainly won't do Haas any favors.

People like Günther Steiner for the memes but it's a results business and the team's going nowhere.

A bust up is one thing but I can absolutely see this being a performance issue.

 

[sillybilly]

Opinion popularity check:

Track Limits is important but the current implementation is too relaxed and they should instead keep 50% of the car "on the track" at all times for valid lap times.

My rationale is this:

• It seems basing the rules something like a tennis ball that is still in if it is 1% on the line it is still in.
• On the contrary if a tennis player puts their foot 1% on the line on serve it is a foot fault, similarly several football codes have the player out if they are 1% on line or 1% over...

So I reckon they should split the difference, and as a sportsmanship ideal the "driver" (in the center of the car in Fl ) should stay on the "field" (track) at all times.

There could be several solutions for monitoring / policing the rules - to use transponders, markers on the front and rear of the car, paint another black line 1m away from the track edge and if the outside tyre hits that line it is out...

I think the only justification for the current rules is to make it easy for them to policy with video analysis - which I think it lazy in the context of Fl and further more in my opinion is it maybe encourages lazy from the drivers who get so much lenience to drive so much off the race track to gain momentum and advantage.

To me it sometimes looks sloppy when it looks like the drivers can't keep their cars on the track and are continuously getting warnings...

I wonder if the rule was reference the car center line if the driver's vision straight ahead might be easier for the drivers to know how close to the limit without running wide and getting warnings to learn where the track edge is?

 

[MineralBlurb7]

1) E-racing is not motorsport, it’s video games.

2) Formula 1 doesn’t need Ferrari (and vice versa).

3) 1990s BTCC has the best racing in any format of all time.

 

[Daz555]

I wonder if the rule was reference the car center line if the driver's vision straight ahead might be easier for the drivers to know how close to the limit without running wide and getting warnings to learn where the track edge is?

These guys are on the limit and pushing for thousands of a second. Centre-line or tyre, they are going to be down to the last available bit of track, and beyond, regardless.

If we accept the theory that centre line was 'easier' for the sake of argument, it would probably just allow the drivers even more leverage to push the limit even harder - we might actually get more off tracks.

 

[Liquid]

On the topic of the Formula One driving position being raised to a more seated position at the top of this page:

I remember my Formula 1 97 on the Playstation. Murray Walker comments in the game that the drivers are lower in the car with their feet raised up to reduce cramp. Martin Brundle also said that the drivers being lower in the car reduces the turbulance created by the driver's helmet interfering with the aerodynamics of the airbox and the air that goes into it.

You're right there, Murray.

 

[WiisardNic]

On the topic of the Formula One driving position being raised to a more seated position at the top of this page:

I remember my Formula 1 97 on the Playstation. Murray Walker comments in the game that the drivers are lower in the car with their feet raised up to reduce cramp. Martin Brundle also said that the drivers being lower in the car reduces the turbulance created by the driver's helmet interfering with the aerodynamics of the airbox and the air that goes into it.

You're right there, Murray.

That's Williams Number 1!

 

[sillybilly]

These guys are on the limit and pushing for thousands of a second. Centre-line or tyre, they are going to be down to the last available bit of track, and beyond, regardless.

If we accept the theory that centre line was 'easier' for the sake of argument, it would probably just allow the drivers even more leverage to push the limit even harder - we might actually get more off tracks.

Sure they would want to push the limit, but I can't believe it would be any worse than the clumsy looking mess of warnings and penalties in recent seasons.

I'm giving the drivers benefit that they mostly exceed limits by accident or judgement errors - if the judgement it easier and they choose to exceed limits that that's just them cheating and that would look bad... but I give them benefit that the better visibility would mean this would happen less... but I could be wrong.

On the topic of the Formula One driving position being raised to a more seated position at the top of this page:

I remember my Formula 1 97 on the Playstation. Murray Walker comments in the game that the drivers are lower in the car with their feet raised up to reduce cramp. Martin Brundle also said that the drivers being lower in the car reduces the turbulance created by the driver's helmet interfering with the aerodynamics of the airbox and the air that goes into it.

You're right there, Murray.

I think Murray would have said that because he would have heard it, and he probably would have believed it - but I'm not going to believe that's plausible / credible significant reason.

I think the turbulence in the airbox could be an actual issue although only very minor performance impact. This would be more significant on the older normally aspirated engines and I think this would be far effect on turbo charged engines in modern cars, and reduced by air-flow-treatment on the halo. So I reckon that's also a non-issue for the idea of changing driver position.

 

[Alfred1]

Formula One rejected Andretti's entry to join the grid in 2025 or 2026. I think the bid was deserving and this is just the teams trying to squeeze more money out. An awful decision by the F1.