ways to make Formula 1 interesting again
Discussion
RYH64E said:
The engine manufacturers who are making engines that (with few exceptions) only they want?
Ask 100 long time F1 fans if they would prefer to see expensive hybrid engines with heavy batteries and nonsense engine modes, or cheap NA V10s with 20k rev limits, and I'd be surprised if you found more than a handful who would choose the hybrids. Ask anyone in F1 if they could source such an engine without Mercedes, Honda or Renault and I bet the answer would be along the lines of 'Hell, yeah'.
The problem isn't whether it could be done, or whether the fans want to see it, or even if the traditional teams would welcome it, the problem is that the people who run F1 have their own agenda, the people who own F1 want to make as much money from it as possible, and the companies that fund F1 want to use it as a tool to sell road cars. Unfortunately people who watch F1 are increasingly saying 'Thanks, but no thanks' and doing something else on a Sunday.
I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer to see the V10s but it's irrelevant as it will never happen. I'm looking at it from a realistic point of view. Without the manufacturers who's going to pay to develop these engines? I don't think any of the non manufacturer backed teams has the cash or resources available to do that. Even going back to old eras of F1 the engines were pretty much all manufacturer backed. You need to give them something back to make them want to be investing heavily in F1, not just an antiquated engine that has no use to them other than racing. Ask 100 long time F1 fans if they would prefer to see expensive hybrid engines with heavy batteries and nonsense engine modes, or cheap NA V10s with 20k rev limits, and I'd be surprised if you found more than a handful who would choose the hybrids. Ask anyone in F1 if they could source such an engine without Mercedes, Honda or Renault and I bet the answer would be along the lines of 'Hell, yeah'.
The problem isn't whether it could be done, or whether the fans want to see it, or even if the traditional teams would welcome it, the problem is that the people who run F1 have their own agenda, the people who own F1 want to make as much money from it as possible, and the companies that fund F1 want to use it as a tool to sell road cars. Unfortunately people who watch F1 are increasingly saying 'Thanks, but no thanks' and doing something else on a Sunday.
George29 said:
So what you're saying is 3 of the 4 engine manufacturers disagree with you.
Why aren't 100s of millions of people flooding to watch GP2? That's got many of the ideas on this thread (reduced aero, reversed grids, NA simplified engines)
100's of millions of people watching from where ?!Why aren't 100s of millions of people flooding to watch GP2? That's got many of the ideas on this thread (reduced aero, reversed grids, NA simplified engines)
The old F1 viewing rating figures are now a complete nonsense.
In the current world of pay viewing the live TV audience for F1 is tiny compared to the likes of football.
Take the UK - how many people genuinely subscribe to Sky F1? a few hundred thousand with a few thousand buying race by race coverage.
Those often quoted big viewing numbers for F1 are from yesteryear and were based on free to air viewings syndicated around the world - with the assumption being its being shown live on a mainstream channel like BBC or RAI there for its getting X viewers. That' audience has long since left the building and true viewing figures show a different story.
George29 said:
I'm not saying I wouldn't prefer to see the V10s but it's irrelevant as it will never happen. I'm looking at it from a realistic point of view. Without the manufacturers who's going to pay to develop these engines? I don't think any of the non manufacturer backed teams has the cash or resources available to do that. Even going back to old eras of F1 the engines were pretty much all manufacturer backed. You need to give them something back to make them want to be investing heavily in F1, not just an antiquated engine that has no use to them other than racing.
How much do you think it would take to develop a suitable NA engine? £10m? £100m? Considering Red Bull alone spend £400m per season it's hardly unaffordable. I can't be bothered digging it out, but there's an interview with Patrick Head back in the early days of the hybrid engines in which he said that decent, powerful alternative engines were readily available and cost peanuts in F1 terms.rallycross said:
100's of millions of people watching from where ?!
The old F1 viewing rating figures are now a complete nonsense.
In the current world of pay viewing the live TV audience for F1 is tiny compared to the likes of football.
Take the UK - how many people genuinely subscribe to Sky F1? a few hundred thousand with a few thousand buying race by race coverage.
Those often quoted big viewing numbers for F1 are from yesteryear and were based on free to air viewings syndicated around the world - with the assumption being its being shown live on a mainstream channel like BBC or RAI there for its getting X viewers. That' audience has long since left the building and true viewing figures show a different story.
That clearly couldn't be further from the point I was making The old F1 viewing rating figures are now a complete nonsense.
In the current world of pay viewing the live TV audience for F1 is tiny compared to the likes of football.
Take the UK - how many people genuinely subscribe to Sky F1? a few hundred thousand with a few thousand buying race by race coverage.
Those often quoted big viewing numbers for F1 are from yesteryear and were based on free to air viewings syndicated around the world - with the assumption being its being shown live on a mainstream channel like BBC or RAI there for its getting X viewers. That' audience has long since left the building and true viewing figures show a different story.
The GP2 audience is tiny compared to F1 yet reading this thread it has everything people supposedly want from F1. So why aren't the grandstands packed out when it's on, or why are more people not watching it on tv?
George29 said:
That clearly couldn't be further from the point I was making :
The GP2 audience is tiny compared to F1 yet reading this thread it has everything people supposedly want from F1. So why aren't the grandstands packed out when it's on, or why are more people not watching it on tv?
I get the point yes no one is interested in Gp2 - it's on the same circuit the cars are loud they sound fast have less down force etc and no one is watching - but that's because it's the feeder series with unknown drivers, pay drivers hopefull drivers and one or two future F1 stars on their way up.The GP2 audience is tiny compared to F1 yet reading this thread it has everything people supposedly want from F1. So why aren't the grandstands packed out when it's on, or why are more people not watching it on tv?
Same as F3000 was, no one watched that either.
RYH64E said:
How much do you think it would take to develop a suitable NA engine? £10m? £100m? Considering Red Bull alone spend £400m per season it's hardly unaffordable. I can't be bothered digging it out, but there's an interview with Patrick Head back in the early days of the hybrid engines in which he said that decent, powerful alternative engines were readily available and cost peanuts in F1 terms.
Red Bull might spend that but none of the other teams do. So you want a championship where red bull dominate in a fashion not even shown by the current Mercedes? and as per my comments before, you go and try to get all the teams to agree with it, it's never going to happen, like it or not. Look at how many big companies are investing in FE. Not my thing at all but you can tell it's going to have a big futureGeorge29 said:
ralphrj said:
George29 said:
Mercedes lose many millions per season even with the £35 double constructors championship bonus.
Mercedes haven't posted profits yet but after reading their latest accounts I think they will do in future.Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Ltd accounts said:
The agreement with the Commercial Rights Holder has provisions for significantly increased revenue flows based on sporting performance, which will now be triggered from 2016 onwards as a result of the team's performances in 2014 and 2015.
Factor in a dividend from the parent company of £13m, Mercedes Benz F1 cost £3.2m for a year. Considering all the TV and media coverage that results from it, I'd say that was a bargain.
More details:
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/not-suc...
George29 said:
Red Bull might spend that but none of the other teams do. So you want a championship where red bull dominate in a fashion not even shown by the current Mercedes? and as per my comments before, you go and try to get all the teams to agree with it, it's never going to happen, like it or not. Look at how many big companies are investing in FE. Not my thing at all but you can tell it's going to have a big future
If the small teams can afford the bill for the current engine I'm sure they could afford something an order of magnitude cheaper. So we appear to have established that F1 could source engines without the manufacturers, that most of the teams and fans wouldn't miss them if they left, your remaining argument is that it's not worth discussing because the powers that be would never let it happen?
RYH64E said:
If the small teams can afford the bill for the current engine I'm sure they could afford something an order of magnitude cheaper.
So we appear to have established that F1 could source engines without the manufacturers, that most of the teams and fans wouldn't miss them if they left, your remaining argument is that it's not worth discussing because the powers that be would never let it happen?
Why don't you go set up your own racing league with that in mind and see how far you get?So we appear to have established that F1 could source engines without the manufacturers, that most of the teams and fans wouldn't miss them if they left, your remaining argument is that it's not worth discussing because the powers that be would never let it happen?
I've listed many reasons why it won't happen. The main one being obviously the main teams wouldn't agree to it.
George29 said:
The GP2 audience is tiny compared to F1 yet reading this thread it has everything people supposedly want from F1. So why aren't the grandstands packed out when it's on, or why are more people not watching it on tv?
Errrr - maybe because GP2 races are mostly support races for F-1, so you have to pay the hugely inflated F-1 ticket price to go see them. They are also only available on pay-to-view TV, which is another guaranteed audience killer - together with an almost total lack of promotion.RYH64E said:
The other suggestion that is absolute nonsense is that the teams couldn't get engines without manufacturer support. Really? Maybe not multi-million pound technological masterpieces, with hybrid technology, energy recovery and boat anchor batteries, but high revving, large capacity, naturally aspirated engines that don't need a team of computer specialists to start and run shouldn't be hard to source.
Precisely - if a tiny manufacturer like Radical can develop their own 3.2l 550bhp V8, albeit based on Suzuki bike engine parts, there's no reason why an F-1 team couldn't source an engine if the regulations were to change to allow simpler non-hybrid engines1) significant reduction in track hosting fees so that we don't lose proper tracks for tilke dromes in counties with no fan base paid for by governments who should be putting their money elsewhere. More even money split to teams
2) significant reduction in cost of aero development. Completely irrelevant outside F1, massively expensive, and means you can't follow the car in front so close racing is inherently impossible. Maybe even standard flat wings front and rear.
3) freedom for engine regs. Renault can go I4, Merc V8 etc. Any team can buy a manufacturers powertrain for a fixed standard cost which will limit how much they spend on development. Manual gearbox is irrelevant these days. There needs to be a high level of technology but at the same time the cars need to difficult to drive so that the driver becomes more of a factor.
2) significant reduction in cost of aero development. Completely irrelevant outside F1, massively expensive, and means you can't follow the car in front so close racing is inherently impossible. Maybe even standard flat wings front and rear.
3) freedom for engine regs. Renault can go I4, Merc V8 etc. Any team can buy a manufacturers powertrain for a fixed standard cost which will limit how much they spend on development. Manual gearbox is irrelevant these days. There needs to be a high level of technology but at the same time the cars need to difficult to drive so that the driver becomes more of a factor.
Edited by skinny on Saturday 5th November 12:32
MartG said:
Errrr - maybe because GP2 races are mostly support races for F-1, so you have to pay the hugely inflated F-1 ticket price to go see them. They are also only available on pay-to-view TV, which is another guaranteed audience killer - together with an almost total lack of promotion.
That doesn't explain any of it. If it's a support race then why are people not watching it? Most of the races I've been to, the grandstands are mainly empty for GP2. F1 is mainly pay per view so why is it not attracting the same audience as Sky Sports F1? According the the majority on this thread that's what they want to see from F1...George29 said:
MartG said:
Errrr - maybe because GP2 races are mostly support races for F-1, so you have to pay the hugely inflated F-1 ticket price to go see them. They are also only available on pay-to-view TV, which is another guaranteed audience killer - together with an almost total lack of promotion.
That doesn't explain any of it. If it's a support race then why are people not watching it? Most of the races I've been to, the grandstands are mainly empty for GP2. F1 is mainly pay per view so why is it not attracting the same audience as Sky Sports F1? According the the majority on this thread that's what they want to see from F1...Same for TV viewers - and it has already been pointed out F-1 TV audiences are falling as it increasingly moves to pay-to-view, never mind figures for a series which is generally under-promoted.
Without free-to-air TV coverage, shown at a reasonable time, with decent promotion, no race series will ever get sufficient interest in it to get new people to pay to see it
Lack of interest in GP2 is absolutely NOTHING to do with its technical spec. It to do with the fact that it is GP2 and not F1. If the GP2 formula was the F1 formula (and GP2 was changed to something else or even abandoned), the audience for F1 would be at least the same as, if not bigger, than what it is now.
Adrian W said:
This is going way off topic, but F1 brings very little new technology, they may choose to develop existing but that's it. give me one example of an F1 development that has found its way into everyday life.
They sub out materiel stress testing to companies like Element, Carbon with wire in composite for embedded is outside F1, engines are engines and that's down to the rules.
we get far more from aviation and the military
There is a lot of marketing and people telling us how great they are.
Developments most of the process though. Otherwise you just have an idea. Recent innovations like hybrids, electric assisst turbos, split turbos, etc wernt invented by f1 but the development done proving the idea will show manufacturers that the concept works if not provide usefull data, lot of big manufacturers can be very lazy and conservative and often noone wants to be first with a risky new idea.They sub out materiel stress testing to companies like Element, Carbon with wire in composite for embedded is outside F1, engines are engines and that's down to the rules.
we get far more from aviation and the military
There is a lot of marketing and people telling us how great they are.
Same with active suspension, clever diffs, TC, diffusers and aero management, the list is endless. There are many things that F1 was the bridge between curious idea and it being fitted to your dreary hatchback.
Adrian W said:
What possible use would brake steer have in a road car? Loads of companies played with Hybrids however it was Toyota that made it work.
This has little to do with making F1 interesting
.
I sill reckon it's simple tyres and wings
Isnt brake steer one of the tools of electronic stability control systems?This has little to do with making F1 interesting
.
I sill reckon it's simple tyres and wings
Eric Mc said:
Lack of interest in GP2 is absolutely NOTHING to do with its technical spec. It to do with the fact that it is GP2 and not F1. If the GP2 formula was the F1 formula (and GP2 was changed to something else or even abandoned), the audience for F1 would be at least the same as, if not bigger, than what it is now.
So why is everyone moaning about the technical spec of F1 now. You're just contradicting yourself...
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff