ways to make Formula 1 interesting again
Discussion
They could set a max downforce value, I.e. a set load at a set speed. Then the designers could work on efficiency of gaining that downforce and using it for the best stability. It 'might' be possible to choose a level that would allow closer cars through high speed corners.
Or maybe profile some curves with slight banking to make multiple lines to allow close following.
Toughen up tyres so they don't burn in a slide.
Remove the fuel flow limit and allow unlimited ers/turbo boost on an overtake button (Ie banzai move, followed by "oh bugger, not got enough fuel!")
Get rid or refine some of the penalties, not sure about vettells penalty last week, will suppress driving.
Don't use the halo.
Allow more engineering freedom.
Give a couple of the crowd a sniper rifle with one shot each.
Or maybe profile some curves with slight banking to make multiple lines to allow close following.
Toughen up tyres so they don't burn in a slide.
Remove the fuel flow limit and allow unlimited ers/turbo boost on an overtake button (Ie banzai move, followed by "oh bugger, not got enough fuel!")
Get rid or refine some of the penalties, not sure about vettells penalty last week, will suppress driving.
Don't use the halo.
Allow more engineering freedom.
Give a couple of the crowd a sniper rifle with one shot each.
Eric Mc said:
Because it is one of the factors making it dreary to watch. I am not contradicting myself. Technical spec does matter - but only if it makes the thing worth viewing. The current iteration ads zip to the enjoyment of the spectacle.
The only reason for that being that one team has run away with the championship for the past 3 seasons, making it very dull to watch. As I've said several times, leave the regulations alone and the other teams catch up whilst Mercedes will plateau.George29 said:
Eric Mc said:
Because it is one of the factors making it dreary to watch. I am not contradicting myself. Technical spec does matter - but only if it makes the thing worth viewing. The current iteration ads zip to the enjoyment of the spectacle.
The only reason for that being that one team has run away with the championship for the past 3 seasons, making it very dull to watch. As I've said several times, leave the regulations alone and the other teams catch up whilst Mercedes will plateau.I've followed F1 when McLaren dominated, Williams dominated, Ferrari dominated, and Red Bull dominated, but it's only been in recent years that I've lost interest.
Eric Mc said:
Wishful thinking.
And, of course, that's precisely what they're NOT doing.
Well they are.... look at the stats this year compared to last, they don't have quite the same level of dominance. And look where Red Bull are now compared to last year, I'd say they are a lot closer over the last few races. And, of course, that's precisely what they're NOT doing.
RYH64E said:
There have been frequent periods of one team dominating F1, it never made it as dreary as the current spectacle. Repeated Mercedes 1 2s don't help, but the problems go far deeper than that.
I've followed F1 when McLaren dominated, Williams dominated, Ferrari dominated, and Red Bull dominated, but it's only been in recent years that I've lost interest.
As I've said many times though, that's down to other things like the tyres rather than the actual technical regulations of the carsI've followed F1 when McLaren dominated, Williams dominated, Ferrari dominated, and Red Bull dominated, but it's only been in recent years that I've lost interest.
RYH64E said:
Tyres, KERS, DRS, engines, fuel saving, aero, batteries... I'm sure a few of those are covered in the technical regulations.
The tyres I wasn't including in them as they have been specified by FOM and not something the teams have a choice about. And those along with max fuel load would be the only thing I'd change, the actual design of the car is sort of irrelevant as I've said, Mercedes will peak (they claim themselves to have peaked under current regs) and others will close the gap. That's the only way you're going to get close racing, not by trying to change the design of the cars to try and artificially engineer it in.George29 said:
The tyres I wasn't including in them as they have been specified by FOM and not something the teams have a choice about. And those along with max fuel load would be the only thing I'd change, the actual design of the car is sort of irrelevant as I've said, Mercedes will peak (they claim themselves to have peaked under current regs) and others will close the gap. That's the only way you're going to get close racing, not by trying to change the design of the cars to try and artificially engineer it in.
Others will close the gap, as Red Bull has done this year, however, it is the regs that make it so difficult to effect an overtake on track. So much aero means you carry maximum speed to a point very close to the apex of each corner. This leaves no opportunity for the driver behind to 'outbrake' you or anything else. This means processional 'racing' with the bulk of the 'overtaking' being down to pit strategy.For me this is a non-spectacle. To create a spectacle you need close racing with driver skill being the key to overtaking. As it is now (and probably worse next year) you cannot get close enough to the car in front because of the 'dirty' air. The only way to get rid of that problem is to reduce aero effect and have a more streamlined shape. So, single aerofoils front and rear, no other aero add-ons allowed. If this results in slower lap times that is fine. You may need to tweak F3, F3000 and similar to increase the gap in lap times between the formulae.
KevinCamaroSS said:
Others will close the gap, as Red Bull has done this year, however, it is the regs that make it so difficult to effect an overtake on track. So much aero means you carry maximum speed to a point very close to the apex of each corner. This leaves no opportunity for the driver behind to 'outbrake' you or anything else. This means processional 'racing' with the bulk of the 'overtaking' being down to pit strategy.
For me this is a non-spectacle. To create a spectacle you need close racing with driver skill being the key to overtaking. As it is now (and probably worse next year) you cannot get close enough to the car in front because of the 'dirty' air. The only way to get rid of that problem is to reduce aero effect and have a more streamlined shape. So, single aerofoils front and rear, no other aero add-ons allowed. If this results in slower lap times that is fine. You may need to tweak F3, F3000 and similar to increase the gap in lap times between the formulae.
I'm well aware about the aero on current and next years cars. I agree I don't think it's going to help overtaking, especially with the cars getting wider, but it should be interesting to see them going round considerably quicker than now. For me this is a non-spectacle. To create a spectacle you need close racing with driver skill being the key to overtaking. As it is now (and probably worse next year) you cannot get close enough to the car in front because of the 'dirty' air. The only way to get rid of that problem is to reduce aero effect and have a more streamlined shape. So, single aerofoils front and rear, no other aero add-ons allowed. If this results in slower lap times that is fine. You may need to tweak F3, F3000 and similar to increase the gap in lap times between the formulae.
What is your evidence that single plane wings are less affected by dirty air? How do you define aero add ons too? I really don't understand why anyone would want to basically turn back the clock on 20 years worth of developments but each to their own.
Younger audiences don't expect to have to pay anything for content. They watch stuff on YouTube, on their phones. All the services they use on the internet are free - FaceBook, Twitter, Instagram, SnapChat, DropBox etc. It's all completely free (free as in beer). Spotify and Netflix take care of legitimate content for less than £15 a month. That means you can watch pretty much any film or TV show, or listen to any piece of music you like, for less than £200 a year. Or you can get it all on BitTorrent for free. This is the backdrop against which the new owners of F1 will have to fight for new consumers, and against which Sky want to charge almost £1000 per year to watch what has become a niche sport.
Sky is bloody expensive for what it represents to the hardcore F1 fan. I go to 3 or 4 races per season, I own some nice cars - but would I pay for Sky? No - it represents terrible value for me, as all I want to watch on it is F1. The cost per hour of content is too much. I won't be signing that Sky contract even when it's the only game in town for live F1. Anecdotal, sure, but that's the dilemma for pay-to-view F1. Young people won't pay for it because their generation expects not to have to pay for stuff that you can't physically hold in your hands. Older generations won't pay for it because it represents poor value compared to just about everything else that competes for their disposable income.
I think the Sky model works well for other sports - look at football. There's just so much content - tens of hours per week, for most of the year, on most days. Cricket? So many different formats and tournaments. A game can last five full days! F1? Not so much. An hour of quali and a couple of hours of racing, every other week. You can add an hour on for the GP2 races if you like, even though hardly anyone watches it, but it still doesn't add up to much.
This is why Liberty want to add more races - to generate more content. However, I think they're barking up the wrong tree. They need to add more content by making it more attractive to watch other classes of motorsport, or by altering F1 in such a way that a race weekend generates more content. GP2 racing is great - as said above, it's what many disgruntled F1 fans claim they'd like to watch, but the drivers aren't superstars, and superstars are what attracts people's interest. I mean, only about a quarter of even the F1 grid are properly famous. Marcus Ericsson? Esteban Gutierrez? Who are they? They're nobodies and will be forgotten in a couple of years. GP2 could be to F1 what Championship football is to the Premier League. Why isn't it a bona-fide second division of F1, with driver promotions or team promotions, funded by prize money? It's not possible for an average footballer to buy a position in a Premier League team - why is it possible in F1? Why are there five hours of practise on a F1 weekend, but only probably an hour of interesting action? (Q3, race start, last third of race).
What I find most surprising about F1 is that there's so much radical stuff they could try, yet they're pissing about with wider tyres and bigger wings. The new fans that F1 NEEDS to attract in order to survive don't care about laptimes, or horsepower, or aero tricks. It's the format that's staid, the competition that is dire.
If F1 were purely a business, it would die, and none of its customers would mourn it.
Sky is bloody expensive for what it represents to the hardcore F1 fan. I go to 3 or 4 races per season, I own some nice cars - but would I pay for Sky? No - it represents terrible value for me, as all I want to watch on it is F1. The cost per hour of content is too much. I won't be signing that Sky contract even when it's the only game in town for live F1. Anecdotal, sure, but that's the dilemma for pay-to-view F1. Young people won't pay for it because their generation expects not to have to pay for stuff that you can't physically hold in your hands. Older generations won't pay for it because it represents poor value compared to just about everything else that competes for their disposable income.
I think the Sky model works well for other sports - look at football. There's just so much content - tens of hours per week, for most of the year, on most days. Cricket? So many different formats and tournaments. A game can last five full days! F1? Not so much. An hour of quali and a couple of hours of racing, every other week. You can add an hour on for the GP2 races if you like, even though hardly anyone watches it, but it still doesn't add up to much.
This is why Liberty want to add more races - to generate more content. However, I think they're barking up the wrong tree. They need to add more content by making it more attractive to watch other classes of motorsport, or by altering F1 in such a way that a race weekend generates more content. GP2 racing is great - as said above, it's what many disgruntled F1 fans claim they'd like to watch, but the drivers aren't superstars, and superstars are what attracts people's interest. I mean, only about a quarter of even the F1 grid are properly famous. Marcus Ericsson? Esteban Gutierrez? Who are they? They're nobodies and will be forgotten in a couple of years. GP2 could be to F1 what Championship football is to the Premier League. Why isn't it a bona-fide second division of F1, with driver promotions or team promotions, funded by prize money? It's not possible for an average footballer to buy a position in a Premier League team - why is it possible in F1? Why are there five hours of practise on a F1 weekend, but only probably an hour of interesting action? (Q3, race start, last third of race).
What I find most surprising about F1 is that there's so much radical stuff they could try, yet they're pissing about with wider tyres and bigger wings. The new fans that F1 NEEDS to attract in order to survive don't care about laptimes, or horsepower, or aero tricks. It's the format that's staid, the competition that is dire.
If F1 were purely a business, it would die, and none of its customers would mourn it.
Adrian W said:
Eric Mc said:
The way things are going there might be NO F1 in ten years time.
Outside the UK Formuka E is developing very quickly and is popular with a much younger fan base.I went to a bash at the 2015 London round, where they had Branson, the boss of Airbus and a few other powerful types all saying the future is electric and that is where the money is going.
Edited by Adrian W on Saturday 5th November 10:39
Gary C said:
Yep, no aero makes for close racing.
Aren't there problems with the aero winglets used on MotoGP bikes? I don't watch it all that often, but last time I did, some bikes (factory Ducatis?) were crashing as the front end washed out when the winglets were affected by the lead bike.George29 said:
What is your evidence that single plane wings are less affected by dirty air? How do you define aero add ons too? I really don't understand why anyone would want to basically turn back the clock on 20 years worth of developments but each to their own.
Indeed, as far as I understand it, a single plane wing (I'm assuming element rather than 'plane') is more susceptible to stalling given turbulence than a multi element wing as dictated by the more recent regulations.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff