What F1 should be, in my view. How can we get this back?
Discussion
Race on ovals?
You don't tend to get that number of lead changes when Indycar races on a road type circuit.
Back in the days of low or no downforce in F1, there were a few Grand Prix circuits where oval type slipstreaming could be utilised - and these circuits often gave rise to lots and lots of position changes. Reims and Monza were particularly well suited to such racing.
You don't tend to get that number of lead changes when Indycar races on a road type circuit.
Back in the days of low or no downforce in F1, there were a few Grand Prix circuits where oval type slipstreaming could be utilised - and these circuits often gave rise to lots and lots of position changes. Reims and Monza were particularly well suited to such racing.
True, F1 is really s
t at the mo, on the other hand I've been saying that for years.
So here's what I think should be done:
1 - No wings. (So no DRS either.)
2 - KERS optional.
3 - No engine restrictions.
4 - Cars may carry as much or as little fuel as they like, but no refuelling.
5 - Max height 1m, max width 2m, max wheelbase 3m, max length 4m.
6 - Min ground clearance 50mm. Completely flat bottom, except for a 50mm steel plate along the centreline of the car.
7 - No limit on number or dimensions of wheels/tyres, or which or how many may be driven. BUT:
8 - Outer edge of body and inner edge of widest wheel/tyre may not overlap.
9 - For the first race of the season a draw will be held to decide grid positions. Afterwards they will be decided by positions in the previous race. So no qualifying.
10 - No points will be awarded. At the end of the season the World Champion will be the driver with the most race wins. If there is a tie, second places will be taken into account. If still a tie, third places, etc.
And most importantly:
11 - These rules will remain unchanged for a minimum of FIVE YEARS.
t at the mo, on the other hand I've been saying that for years.So here's what I think should be done:
1 - No wings. (So no DRS either.)
2 - KERS optional.
3 - No engine restrictions.
4 - Cars may carry as much or as little fuel as they like, but no refuelling.
5 - Max height 1m, max width 2m, max wheelbase 3m, max length 4m.
6 - Min ground clearance 50mm. Completely flat bottom, except for a 50mm steel plate along the centreline of the car.
7 - No limit on number or dimensions of wheels/tyres, or which or how many may be driven. BUT:
8 - Outer edge of body and inner edge of widest wheel/tyre may not overlap.
9 - For the first race of the season a draw will be held to decide grid positions. Afterwards they will be decided by positions in the previous race. So no qualifying.
10 - No points will be awarded. At the end of the season the World Champion will be the driver with the most race wins. If there is a tie, second places will be taken into account. If still a tie, third places, etc.
And most importantly:
11 - These rules will remain unchanged for a minimum of FIVE YEARS.
Edited by Evangelion on Sunday 28th June 19:57
Edited by Evangelion on Sunday 28th June 19:58
What I noticed was that often it is the not so big team that does well when a major rule change happens. Look at Braun a few years ago.
When rule change, sometimes its the team that gets it right out of the box that does well. That does not always mean the team with the biggest budget. Indeed, we have seen teams with pretty big budgets fail miserably on many occasions.
What is guaranteed is that, in an era of stable regulations, the big budget teams will have a longer time to use their spending power to maximise development.
When rule change, sometimes its the team that gets it right out of the box that does well. That does not always mean the team with the biggest budget. Indeed, we have seen teams with pretty big budgets fail miserably on many occasions.
What is guaranteed is that, in an era of stable regulations, the big budget teams will have a longer time to use their spending power to maximise development.
Eric Mc said:
Sack 250 of the team personnel leaving only 50 as a maximum available pool of staff. That would -
a) slash the budgets
b) reduce the technical capability of the team
c) reduce the "knowledge base" available
Racing cars are at their most exciting when the designers aren't really sure what they are doing.
Sacking 250 would leave Mercedes with a 'mere' 600 on the chassis/aero side and would likely not even affect the 'other' company that Red Bull subs a lot of its tech work out to. a) slash the budgets
b) reduce the technical capability of the team
c) reduce the "knowledge base" available
Racing cars are at their most exciting when the designers aren't really sure what they are doing.
If you wanted to cheaply make the cars difficult to drive you should introduce a simple cable between the driver's foot and the throttle butterflies - unlikely seeing as every road car for nearly 20 years has run a fly-by-wire throttle. The days of the dancing, bouncing, snapping F1 car are largely behind us because the engineers simply design better cars these days. You'd have to have a simultaneous complete re-write of the tech rules and a total ban on data logging and tyre simulation models to really shake things up, but that won't happen.
I will make one more point: lift and coast. This has gone on for years, but the proliferation of radio messages on the telly in recent years means you only hear about it these days. Fuel saving was going on right through the 2.4 V8 era - you never started a race with enough fuel to run flat out as the car would be heavy and slow because 10kg would cost you 0.3-0.4s per lap and losing 4 seconds in the first 10 laps isn't great. You'd also pay close attention to the historical instances of a Safety Car and hedge your bets regarding how many laps it might be out for - and that get twitchy if it didn't appear... And, in any case, I'd love to show a full list of race lap times for a random 2015 car to a TV spectator and ask them to show me on which laps the driver was lifting and coasting, because the time loss is tiny and the driver often makes it up in other areas of the turns.
That's more or less the point I am making. Longing for a return to the cars of yesteryear is rather pointless (sadly) as modern engineers know far too much to deliberately go out of their way to make an ill handling car.
Maybe we will just have to come to terms with the fact that we will never see a racing car that is actually exciting to watch any more - and consequently will have to recognise the fact that as more money is pumped into technical development, the more the fans walk away.
Maybe we will just have to come to terms with the fact that we will never see a racing car that is actually exciting to watch any more - and consequently will have to recognise the fact that as more money is pumped into technical development, the more the fans walk away.
kiseca said:
Braun were Honda. They were one of the biggest teams on the block.
Whatever, I'm sure Stoddart noticed the effect of rule changes a lot more than you did.
They WERE one of the biggest teams when they were Honda. As Braun they were severely curtailed and did wonders in what was effectively a team with the rug pulled out from under them.Whatever, I'm sure Stoddart noticed the effect of rule changes a lot more than you did.
Stoddart isn't the only team owner there ever was. I'm sure there are others in F1 who hold or have held other views.
And, of course,an F1 team owner has not a care in the world for making his cars exciting or interesting to watch. All he wants to do is make his cars competitive in the context of what is needed in whatever era he finds himself a team owner - so the views he holds will be biased (rightly) in that direction, rather than making the "sport" more entertaining and interesting.
Ahonen said:
I will make one more point: lift and coast. This has gone on for years, but the proliferation of radio messages on the telly in recent years means you only hear about it these days. Fuel saving was going on right through the 2.4 V8 era - you never started a race with enough fuel to run flat out as the car would be heavy and slow because 10kg would cost you 0.3-0.4s per lap and losing 4 seconds in the first 10 laps isn't great. You'd also pay close attention to the historical instances of a Safety Car and hedge your bets regarding how many laps it might be out for - and that get twitchy if it didn't appear... And, in any case, I'd love to show a full list of race lap times for a random 2015 car to a TV spectator and ask them to show me on which laps the driver was lifting and coasting, because the time loss is tiny and the driver often makes it up in other areas of the turns.
Wonder if it would make a difference if they had to start with the max 100kg of fuel each race? Ok some, would still have lift & coast (eg Canada with no safety cars) but not many.rscott said:
Ahonen said:
I will make one more point: lift and coast. This has gone on for years, but the proliferation of radio messages on the telly in recent years means you only hear about it these days. Fuel saving was going on right through the 2.4 V8 era - you never started a race with enough fuel to run flat out as the car would be heavy and slow because 10kg would cost you 0.3-0.4s per lap and losing 4 seconds in the first 10 laps isn't great. You'd also pay close attention to the historical instances of a Safety Car and hedge your bets regarding how many laps it might be out for - and that get twitchy if it didn't appear... And, in any case, I'd love to show a full list of race lap times for a random 2015 car to a TV spectator and ask them to show me on which laps the driver was lifting and coasting, because the time loss is tiny and the driver often makes it up in other areas of the turns.
Wonder if it would make a difference if they had to start with the max 100kg of fuel each race? Ok some, would still have lift & coast (eg Canada with no safety cars) but not many.Eric Mc said:
kiseca said:
Braun were Honda. They were one of the biggest teams on the block.
Whatever, I'm sure Stoddart noticed the effect of rule changes a lot more than you did.
They WERE one of the biggest teams when they were Honda. As Braun they were severely curtailed and did wonders in what was effectively a team with the rug pulled out from under them.Whatever, I'm sure Stoddart noticed the effect of rule changes a lot more than you did.
Stoddart isn't the only team owner there ever was. I'm sure there are others in F1 who hold or have held other views.
And, of course,an F1 team owner has not a care in the world for making his cars exciting or interesting to watch. All he wants to do is make his cars competitive in the context of what is needed in whatever era he finds himself a team owner - so the views he holds will be biased (rightly) in that direction, rather than making the "sport" more entertaining and interesting.
Regarding views of other team owners, I'd be happy to hear them.
The point of Stoddarts comments though was not about making the racing more exciting, it was how to make the lower teams get closer to the front ones. Ergo, closer racing, therefore more excitement - one would hope.
Changing the rules does shake things up no doubt, but that also doesn't in itself lead to a more interesting race. It is more likely simply going to change the name on the two dominant cars at the front.
When the rules don't change, the teams with the money start bumping into the law of diminishing returns while the teams with less money start to catch up. Until someone like Chapman or Newey sparks a revolution, anyway.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff