Fans to be surveyed about the state of F1
Discussion
How about not just one race per weekend but 2 or 3?
F1 seems to take 4 days to work out who starts where for a race that lasts less than 2 hours. Other series (e.g. V8 Supercars) have multiple races over the weekend.
Qualify Saturday am, first race Saturday pm, top ten from that are the top ten spots on the grid for Sunday's main race but reversed (so 1st starts 10th).
By adding another couple of races each weekend the overall strategy comes in to play.
F1 seems to take 4 days to work out who starts where for a race that lasts less than 2 hours. Other series (e.g. V8 Supercars) have multiple races over the weekend.
Qualify Saturday am, first race Saturday pm, top ten from that are the top ten spots on the grid for Sunday's main race but reversed (so 1st starts 10th).
By adding another couple of races each weekend the overall strategy comes in to play.
Agreed. The notion of "The Grand Prix" has been lost somewhat with the predominance of the "Formula 1" branding. GP racing predates F1 by almost half a century and even in the F1 era there were a few years where Grand Prix racing was to F2 rules.
When Denis Jenkinson used to disspaprove of a certain Grand Prix race or a particular venue (the British GP at Brands Hatch in 1964, for example), he would start his report with something like "There was a Formula 1 race held last weekend as part of the World Drivers' and Constructors' Championship. It wasn't a Grand Prix".
When Denis Jenkinson used to disspaprove of a certain Grand Prix race or a particular venue (the British GP at Brands Hatch in 1964, for example), he would start his report with something like "There was a Formula 1 race held last weekend as part of the World Drivers' and Constructors' Championship. It wasn't a Grand Prix".
A massive loosening of the rules on design needs to occur imo.
Over time as the engineers have out thought the wording of the rules, new tighter rules have been written to counteract that creativity creating an ever narrower opportunity for differentiation between the teams' cars.
Should start again with maximum dimensions, specified wheel size, engine swept capacity and fuel choice.
Necessary safety regulations too ofc.
Over time as the engineers have out thought the wording of the rules, new tighter rules have been written to counteract that creativity creating an ever narrower opportunity for differentiation between the teams' cars.
Should start again with maximum dimensions, specified wheel size, engine swept capacity and fuel choice.
Necessary safety regulations too ofc.
JustinF said:
A massive loosening of the rules on design needs to occur imo.
Over time as the engineers have out thought the wording of the rules, new tighter rules have been written to counteract that creativity creating an ever narrower opportunity for differentiation between the teams' cars.
Should start again with maximum dimensions, specified wheel size, engine swept capacity and fuel choice.
Necessary safety regulations too ofc.
Would be incredibly expensive, unsustainably so. Also runs the risk of one or two teams getting it very right and everyone else getting it very wrong. Think McLaren at Melbourne in 1998 (lapped the whole field) or A team winning nearly every race, funnily enough also McLaren winning 17 out of 18! As great as it would be, it wouldn't work.Over time as the engineers have out thought the wording of the rules, new tighter rules have been written to counteract that creativity creating an ever narrower opportunity for differentiation between the teams' cars.
Should start again with maximum dimensions, specified wheel size, engine swept capacity and fuel choice.
Necessary safety regulations too ofc.
I postulated an idea on another forum, remove the fuel flow limit and mandatory fuel tank sizes. Then limit the amount of fuel a team can use from the start of qualifying through to the end of the race. And then reduce that limit by ten litres every season for as long as necessary. A team that doesn't get out of Q1 could turn the wick up a bit in the race as they've used less fuel in qualifying which should allow the 'slower' cars catch the faster ones who may have to conserve their fuel. A team could also make a car with a larger fuel tank to run a more powerful but thirstier engine and take the chance that the extra fuel carried makes up for it.
MissChief said:
JustinF said:
A massive loosening of the rules on design needs to occur imo.
Over time as the engineers have out thought the wording of the rules, new tighter rules have been written to counteract that creativity creating an ever narrower opportunity for differentiation between the teams' cars.
Should start again with maximum dimensions, specified wheel size, engine swept capacity and fuel choice.
Necessary safety regulations too ofc.
Would be incredibly expensive, unsustainably so. Also runs the risk of one or two teams getting it very right and everyone else getting it very wrong. Think McLaren at Melbourne in 1998 (lapped the whole field) or A team winning nearly every race, funnily enough also McLaren winning 17 out of 18! As great as it would be, it wouldn't work.Over time as the engineers have out thought the wording of the rules, new tighter rules have been written to counteract that creativity creating an ever narrower opportunity for differentiation between the teams' cars.
Should start again with maximum dimensions, specified wheel size, engine swept capacity and fuel choice.
Necessary safety regulations too ofc.
I postulated an idea on another forum, remove the fuel flow limit and mandatory fuel tank sizes. Then limit the amount of fuel a team can use from the start of qualifying through to the end of the race. And then reduce that limit by ten litres every season for as long as necessary. A team that doesn't get out of Q1 could turn the wick up a bit in the race as they've used less fuel in qualifying which should allow the 'slower' cars catch the faster ones who may have to conserve their fuel. A team could also make a car with a larger fuel tank to run a more powerful but thirstier engine and take the chance that the extra fuel carried makes up for it.
One of the worst rules in play at the moment is the start the race on your quali tyres, it was intended to spice up quali and level the playing field between those up front and the lagging teams, in practice it has just let the dominant teams have more fresh rubber for race day thus stamping their authority over those that burnt an extra set to make the top 10 shoot out.
Separate quali rubber and race day rubber.
Jader1973 said:
How about not just one race per weekend but 2 or 3?
Perhaps extend the logic of this further by having a shorter WCC race on the Saturday and a long WDC race, based on reverse grid, on SundayObviously would not work at Monaco, but would probably ease tensions about customer cars if they can't win prize money.
JustinF said:
My idea was a massive simplification of what could actually occur, there would need to be reg's in areas I'm not even aware of but I stand by allowing innovation within broad rules rather than stifling it within shackles.
One of the worst rules in play at the moment is the start the race on your quali tyres, it was intended to spice up quali and level the playing field between those up front and the lagging teams, in practice it has just let the dominant teams have more fresh rubber for race day thus stamping their authority over those that burnt an extra set to make the top 10 shoot out.
Separate quali rubber and race day rubber.
Pirelli have said before they can do qualifying tyres without too much drama or cost. I agree, ditch the current tyre rules (including both compound rules in the race), also let them ditch the fuel flow regulations in qualifying (or completely!) and let them go as fast as the car, engine and tyres will let them. Then we'd sort the men from the boys!One of the worst rules in play at the moment is the start the race on your quali tyres, it was intended to spice up quali and level the playing field between those up front and the lagging teams, in practice it has just let the dominant teams have more fresh rubber for race day thus stamping their authority over those that burnt an extra set to make the top 10 shoot out.
Separate quali rubber and race day rubber.
MissChief said:
Would be incredibly expensive, unsustainably so. Also runs the risk of one or two teams getting it very right and everyone else getting it very wrong. Think McLaren at Melbourne in 1998 (lapped the whole field) or A team winning nearly every race, funnily enough also McLaren winning 17 out of 18! As great as it would be, it wouldn't work.
I postulated an idea on another forum, remove the fuel flow limit and mandatory fuel tank sizes. Then limit the amount of fuel a team can use from the start of qualifying through to the end of the race. And then reduce that limit by ten litres every season for as long as necessary. A team that doesn't get out of Q1 could turn the wick up a bit in the race as they've used less fuel in qualifying which should allow the 'slower' cars catch the faster ones who may have to conserve their fuel. A team could also make a car with a larger fuel tank to run a more powerful but thirstier engine and take the chance that the extra fuel carried makes up for it.
Pretty sure when the fuel rate thing started making the headlines at the start of last year they said the limit was in part a safety issue as they don't want cars with 1000HP mixing with cars on a low fuel usage stage of their race.I postulated an idea on another forum, remove the fuel flow limit and mandatory fuel tank sizes. Then limit the amount of fuel a team can use from the start of qualifying through to the end of the race. And then reduce that limit by ten litres every season for as long as necessary. A team that doesn't get out of Q1 could turn the wick up a bit in the race as they've used less fuel in qualifying which should allow the 'slower' cars catch the faster ones who may have to conserve their fuel. A team could also make a car with a larger fuel tank to run a more powerful but thirstier engine and take the chance that the extra fuel carried makes up for it.
FunkyNige said:
MissChief said:
I postulated an idea on another forum, remove the fuel flow limit and mandatory fuel tank sizes. Then limit the amount of fuel a team can use from the start of qualifying through to the end of the race. And then reduce that limit by ten litres every season for as long as necessary. A team that doesn't get out of Q1 could turn the wick up a bit in the race as they've used less fuel in qualifying which should allow the 'slower' cars catch the faster ones who may have to conserve their fuel. A team could also make a car with a larger fuel tank to run a more powerful but thirstier engine and take the chance that the extra fuel carried makes up for it.
Pretty sure when the fuel rate thing started making the headlines at the start of last year they said the limit was in part a safety issue as they don't want cars with 1000HP mixing with cars on a low fuel usage stage of their race.Pity there wasn't a question asking whether Ecclestone, in trousering his billions , has either completely destroyed the sport already or has a little more work to do. I reckon the job will be done when we have the Azerbaijan Grand Prix - the country whose motor sport passion and heritage has few peers. Apart from China , South Korea and Bahrain obviously.
SeeFive said:
Spent ages filling it in and then found that they wanted my name and email to submit the survey. I do not want to be spammed / sold at / marketed or otherwise in order to help them with my opinions, so abandoned at that point.
Fill in nick name, and fake e-mail address. Or put a Mr. B. Eccelstoneshttp://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119183
Jacques Villeneuve said:
Former world champion Jacques Villeneuve believes it is "dangerous" to ask fans for their views on shaping the future of Formula 1.
Last week, AUTOSPORT, F1 Racing and Motorsport News unveiled a global fan survey, which closes today, with the Grand Prix Drivers' Association following suit.
But Villeneuve disagreed with the idea of getting fans involved and added that the sport should stop trying to attract more fans and instead focus on entertaining the current following.
"It is dangerous to ask the fans what they want, because a lot of modern F1 is what the fans wanted," the 1997 world champion told AUTOSPORT.
"Obviously it doesn't work. It is knowing what is required which is very intricate.
"You can't just come up with something in five seconds.
"We have a tonne more overtaking than we have ever had, but people are more bored than they ever were.
"What we are missing is a special Formula 1.
"Formula 1 should stop trying to get more fans and concentrate on the fans it already has."
When asked what he considered to be a "special Formula 1", the 11-time F1 race winner replied: "What is special is a car that no-one can drive.
"It is a car that only 10 guys in the world can drive properly and 10 others can survive properly in it. Like it used to be.
"It is a car that is crazy fast. F1 should be the extremes of everything."
At least I agree with the last part.Last week, AUTOSPORT, F1 Racing and Motorsport News unveiled a global fan survey, which closes today, with the Grand Prix Drivers' Association following suit.
But Villeneuve disagreed with the idea of getting fans involved and added that the sport should stop trying to attract more fans and instead focus on entertaining the current following.
"It is dangerous to ask the fans what they want, because a lot of modern F1 is what the fans wanted," the 1997 world champion told AUTOSPORT.
"Obviously it doesn't work. It is knowing what is required which is very intricate.
"You can't just come up with something in five seconds.
"We have a tonne more overtaking than we have ever had, but people are more bored than they ever were.
"What we are missing is a special Formula 1.
"Formula 1 should stop trying to get more fans and concentrate on the fans it already has."
When asked what he considered to be a "special Formula 1", the 11-time F1 race winner replied: "What is special is a car that no-one can drive.
"It is a car that only 10 guys in the world can drive properly and 10 others can survive properly in it. Like it used to be.
"It is a car that is crazy fast. F1 should be the extremes of everything."
ash73 said:
MissChief said:
Also runs the risk of one or two teams getting it very right and everyone else getting it very wrong. Think McLaren at Melbourne in 1998 (lapped the whole field) or A team winning nearly every race, funnily enough also McLaren winning 17 out of 18! As great as it would be, it wouldn't work.
Substitute Mercedes for McLaren and you could be describing 2014/15.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff