What happened to F1?

What happened to F1?

Author
Discussion

JonRB

74,549 posts

272 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
Crafty_ said:
Interesting blog post from Will Buxton : http://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/ne...

(Stands well back)
Superb article. Some very good points.

Chrisgr31

13,474 posts

255 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
JonRB said:
Crafty_ said:
Interesting blog post from Will Buxton : http://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/ne...

(Stands well back)
Superb article. Some very good points.
Yup indeed. Incidentially I wonder if the issues with a lack of customers for the Paddock Club is linked to the anti-bribery laws in the UK. Certainly we are very restricted on what corporate entertainment we can offer these days.

JonRB

74,549 posts

272 months

Monday 28th July 2014
quotequote all
Chrisgr31 said:
Yup indeed. Incidentially I wonder if the issues with a lack of customers for the Paddock Club is linked to the anti-bribery laws in the UK. Certainly we are very restricted on what corporate entertainment we can offer these days.
I'm sure Bernie wouldn't see it as bribery. evil

BritishRacinGrin

24,700 posts

160 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
The Pits said:
I wonder what configurations they'd use if they could use as many cylinders as they like?
Four cylinders, I suspect- probably vee or flat configuration.

xRIEx

8,180 posts

148 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
BritishRacinGrin said:
The Pits said:
I wonder what configurations they'd use if they could use as many cylinders as they like?
Four cylinders, I suspect- probably vee or flat configuration.
I thought 4 cylinders had been the proposal for this year, but the teams complained so it became V6s.

BritishRacinGrin

24,700 posts

160 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Indeed, the main cause of complaint was that an inline engine cannot be carried as a stressed member in the chassis as it is that much narrower than a 'vee' engine, this would've caused a major chassis re-think. I think the 4-cylinder proposal was unpopular with fans as well who were concerned that the engines would sound uninspiring. As you say, V6 was arrived at by way of compromise but I suspect that if you loosened the brief to 1600cc forced induction engines you'd expect to see a lot of four pots on the grid.

ETA: I should say before somebody jumps on me that flat configuration would probably be unlikely due to wideness, difficulty in packaging exhaust plumbing and therefore CoG also. So yeah I reckon they'd go I4 or V4

Edited by BritishRacinGrin on Tuesday 29th July 07:28

Derek Smith

45,659 posts

248 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
BritishRacinGrin said:
Indeed, the main cause of complaint was that an inline engine cannot be carried as a stressed member in the chassis . . .

Edited by BritishRacinGrin on Tuesday 29th July 07:28
So how did they manage in the turbo era? From memory, the more or less stock block BMW 4-pot M-10 was bolted to the bulkhead and all the other stuff bolted to it. What's so different nowadays?

BritishRacinGrin

24,700 posts

160 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
I think the cars used to use a partial spaceframe for the rear end which bolted up to the 'tub'?

If that's the case it'd inevitably be heavier than the pretty much entirely carbon fibre construction they use now.

mistakenplane

426 posts

120 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Crafty_ said:
Interesting blog post from Will Buxton : http://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/ne...

(Stands well back)
He must read PH, he nicked what I did in regards to the German GP last week!

And he is right of course. If the powers that be didnt have a vested interest in a) running down the sport so they can try to buy it back cheaper and b) want to also maximise every dollar they can squeeze out of it, then theyd be all over the media telling people what they are missing.

Instead the media are telling people how fantastic it is, while those who run it keep putting it down!

Derek Smith

45,659 posts

248 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
BritishRacinGrin said:
I think the cars used to use a partial spaceframe for the rear end which bolted up to the 'tub'?

If that's the case it'd inevitably be heavier than the pretty much entirely carbon fibre construction they use now.
Thanks for that.

scarble

5,277 posts

157 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
BritishRacinGrin said:
ETA: I should say before somebody jumps on me that flat configuration would probably be unlikely due to wideness, difficulty in packaging exhaust plumbing and therefore CoG also. So yeah I reckon they'd go I4 or V4
Subaru (Motori Moderni) tried it once with a flat 12 in a Coloni, didn't really work out. It might have been possible but the implementation was terrible, obviously the allowed aero dimensions and even the wheelbase/track have an effect on what configurations work best.
Obviously Porsche have a V4 in LMP1. Maybe if V4s were allowed Honda on their comeback would do one.

BritishRacinGrin

24,700 posts

160 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Crafty_ said:
Interesting blog post from Will Buxton : http://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/ne...

(Stands well back)
Well done that man.

Regarding engine configurations, I just read that Formula 3 use an inline 4 engine as a stressed member by fitting ginormous sump pans and rocker covers which sandwich the block, lending it extra torsional rigidity and beam strength and acting as attachment points for suspension, downforce elements etc... So it could be done but it'd be a much more radical change than V6 was.

scarble

5,277 posts

157 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Crafty_ said:
Interesting blog post from Will Buxton : http://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/ne...
(Stands well back)
*standing ovation*

Put Bernie in prison and give this man his job.

Bradgate

2,823 posts

147 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Crafty_ said:
Interesting blog post from Will Buxton : http://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/ne...

(Stands well back)
Thanks for posting that. It's excellent, and I agree with almost every word.

The rose-tinted specs brigade are just plain wrong. The spectacle of F1 is currently as good as it has ever been in my time (ie since the mid '80s). The sport had to embrace turbo / hybrid technology to remain relevant and keep the manufacturers on board, and sadly the noise had to change. Apart from that, however, F1 has got it right on the track. Even Pirelli have finally got their act together.

The sport's business model has to change so that fans can afford to go to races, the teams can stay in business and employ drivers on merit, not for financial reasons.

Eric Mc

122,029 posts

265 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
There are FAR worse things wrong with F1 than that.
I'll quote myself (bad form I know) but the article chimes more or less with what I was referring to. The actual F1 we are seeing on the track has really come good this year.

It's the underlying business model and direction of travel of the sport and its ethos that is really, really worrying.

And it has been worrying me for a long time.

Dr Interceptor

7,786 posts

196 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Bradgate said:
Even Pirelli have finally got their act together.
In fairness, they've been pretty much spot on from the word go as well. They were told to deliver a tyre that life expired more quickly, and they did.

The real low point I guess were the complete failures at Silverstone.

I think the current tyres are pretty much spot on in terms of wear rate and life though. 2-3 sets of tyres per race is acceptable, and means the teams are able to strategise around pit stops.

Great Dane

2,723 posts

166 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Stopped going years ago (and I have seen more than 50 GP's all around the world)and I was the last to cling on from my group of Petrolheads. Too expensive and not worth the value and effort. Endurance racing is the thing... not exclusive but inclusive - you should go

The BBC TV debacle was the final straw - just showed that is only about money... lost the final connection with F1 after over 40 years. Live in Milton Keynes less than one mile from Red Bull and am not really upset/bothered that they are not doing too well.

Edited by Great Dane on Tuesday 29th July 21:42

Mr_Thyroid

1,995 posts

227 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
scarble said:
hehe
I admit I only caught the highlights, I guess there were slow parts to it, but there were tense moments all over, seems there was a lot of potential for cars to fall off at any moment, looked like the drivers were all properly on edge for the whole race.
You definitely lose a lot by just watching highlights - I watched it in a pub with no sound and thought it was absolutely gripping.

JonRB

74,549 posts

272 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
scarble said:
I admit I only caught the highlights
If ever there a race that simply could not be encompassed by a Highlights programme, it was Hungary 2014.

Chrisgr31

13,474 posts

255 months

Tuesday 29th July 2014
quotequote all
Great Dane said:
Stopped going years ago (and I have seen more than 50 GP's all around the world)and I was the last to cling on from my group of Petrolheads. Too expensive and not worth the value and effort. Endurance racing is the thing... not exclusive but inclusive - you should go

The BBC TV debacle was the final straw - just showed that is only about money... lost the final connection with F1 after over 40 years. Live in Milton Keynes less than one mile from Red Bull and am not really upset/bothered that they are not doing too well.

Edited by Great Dane on Tuesday 29th July 21:42
Well the BBC TV debacle was not really of F1s making, it was a stupid decision by the BBC.

However I do think the value for money point is a good one, used to have touring cars and other races on the bill at the British GP but what is it just one support race now? Its just not worth going.