Has F1 failed in its purpose?

Has F1 failed in its purpose?

Author
Discussion

Dr Z

Original Poster:

3,396 posts

170 months

Friday 4th March 2016
quotequote all
Here we go, thought I will start a new thread, and not derail the McLaren thread with any more posts there. To set the context:

Scuffers said:
Dr Z said:
My opinion is simply that yes, to a large degree, involvement in F1 is a marketing exercise for the big manufacturers. I was reading an interview of Andy Cowell (Mercedes HPP), where he mentioned that having little or no prior experience in a turbo compound setup as required by the current F1 regs, his team had to call on the expertise of the Daimler truck division to help design concepts for the F1 PU at an early stage of development. So, the translation here is actually going in the other direction. But, equally you cannot discount that the lessons learned in F1 with respect to materials etc can be translated to a road car easier than from another "alien" industry. A certain tech might as well be invented and used in the aerospace industry in the first instance, but you cannot deny that the translation that happens to apply that tech to F1 makes it easier to also translate it to the road car industry. If one cannot accept this simple premise, then I suggest this whole discussion is futile.
exactly, the tech flow is from other applications INTO F1 these days.

I'm not arguing that in F1 it's then developed on hard, but that development will be very much aimed at it's use in F1 and is likely making it less useful outside that environment.

for example, turbo energy recovery for a road car has to work over a huge range, from highway cruise to full out WOT stuff, so a single fixed turbine without any form of variable geometry or the like is simply not going to cut it, yet F1 has banned anything like variable geometry or multiple stage turbo's.

this is a shame, because one of the major stumbling blocks to variable turbo's is making one that can stand the heat, and if the F1 guys could use them, then I bet they would come up with something that would be viable - and thus develop something that could be used on road cars.
Dr Z said:
And that brings us nicely to this point: F1 needs to figure out what it wants to be, as I certainly feel that the current regulations are half-hearted and confused in it's road relevance. A good argument can be made that WEC is more road relevant than F1 in its current guise. Can F1 in all its glory, exist without the big manufacturer presence? If not, then we already have our answer. How will the 70s look without Ford? What about the 80s without Honda? 90s without Renault?

Formula One's relationship with the manufacturers is symbiotic, so in order to attract them, it has to in some way pander to their marketing deparments. Because, ultimately the racing departments justify their spending to the manufacturer's board with reference to the marketing depts and road relevance. Having attracted the manufacturers, F1 also has to uphold the spirit of racing, however diluted it may be. Fans demand to see the top drivers going wheel to wheel, and fighting for the championship. They like to see good racing, which means more closely matched cars. This is anathema to innovation, which is also one of the requirements of better road relevance.

So, on the one hand, F1 (or FIA more specifically) is trying to limit innovation to encourage quicker convergence between teams to help increase the spectacle. On the other hand, F1 is trying to attract manufacturers by promising more road relevance, so the racing departments of the manufacturers can somehow justify their existence. Unfortunately, it has failed on both counts.

But on the latter point, the FIA is also having to balance the manufacturers and teams own individual agenda and power struggle. Remember when Renault were pushing for the inline-4 turbo regulations and Ferrari didn't like it, because it wasn't very 'road relevant' to them, suggesting the V6? The current regulations are the result of that mess. And the endless suggestions of gimmicks such as the DRS, artificial tyre degradation or that newly proposed qualification system to "improve the show" trying to patch up failure of FIA to increase the spectacle. These are just papering over bleeding big canyons, I'm afraid.
Scuffers said:
this is where the argument falls apart for me.

it would be very easy to mandate a cheap production engine for F1, hell, a nice GM LS9 would do the job, and sound pretty good, or even the Merc SLR engine, both would cost peanuts and be capable of the same kind of power they have now.

so, the choice is a £25M a year engine or one that would be <£100K

where's the argument?
So you don't believe F1 needs manufacturers? Clearly they will not be interested in cheap production engines.

Vaud

50,289 posts

154 months

Friday 4th March 2016
quotequote all
i think we need them, but I'd much prefer a cost capped formula with fewer rules, though it would be hard to police.

£50M

any engine
any aspiration
fuel - maybe based on aspiration
a min weight
standard tyre sets (as now)
some general aero rules for safety (no skirts, etc)
HANS, impact tests as now

Away they go...

£50M would entice more manufacturers, would be chaos for a few seasons and maybe we would even have pre qualification again

rubystone

11,252 posts

258 months

Friday 4th March 2016
quotequote all
Is £50m the development cost? if so, as Max Mosley accepted finally - impossible to police.

Might be better to let them spend what they want but put a cap on what they can sell it to teams for and that they must make the latest spec available to both works and non works teams. Eve better if transmission included too.

That way we get non works teams able to compete with a know cost on mechanicals, leaving them with a known budget to spend on aero etc. STR are proof that one can make a big difference on that front!

I think I've stated it before - for the manufacturers. F1 exists as a marketing tool. Even RBR admit that's why they are there.

Vocal Minority

8,582 posts

151 months

Friday 4th March 2016
quotequote all
rubystone said:
Even RBR admit that's why they are there.
With the best will in the world - Red Bull are the most likely to admit that - there's no 'even' about it!

rubystone

11,252 posts

258 months

Friday 4th March 2016
quotequote all
Vocal Minority said:
With the best will in the world - Red Bull are the most likely to admit that - there's no 'even' about it!
True, but Mateschitz is also a big fan of motor racing, so I am allowing them the "even" smile

RYH64E

7,960 posts

243 months

Friday 4th March 2016
quotequote all
The question that needs to be answered is, are F1 rules and regulations intended to produce the most exciting and entertaining spectacle of motor racing possible? And if not, why not?

Imo, F1 has become nothing more than a tool to help the motor manufacturers sell more cars, with a secondary agenda of pandering to the Green movement, excitement and entertainment aren't even on the wish list. The phrases 'lift and coast', 'you're not racing xyz', and 'fall back and look after your tyres' should never be heard in F1.

kambites

67,461 posts

220 months

Friday 4th March 2016
quotequote all
The first stage of answering that question would be coming to some sort of consensus about what its purpose is.

Vaud

50,289 posts

154 months

Friday 4th March 2016
quotequote all
PW said:
If it has, no one here can do anything about it, even if by some miracle everyone reached an agreement.

F1 seems to have turned into something that people endure on Sunday afternoon so that they have something to complain about for every waking hour between races.
Not for me. It's flawed but I love it still. I enjoy most races!

Dr Z

Original Poster:

3,396 posts

170 months

Friday 4th March 2016
quotequote all
Vaud said:
PW said:
If it has, no one here can do anything about it, even if by some miracle everyone reached an agreement.

F1 seems to have turned into something that people endure on Sunday afternoon so that they have something to complain about for every waking hour between races.
Not for me. It's flawed but I love it still. I enjoy most races!
I would put myself in the same camp. Don't like some aspects of it, but would still try and tune in to watch live if I can. I used to watch every race live, but have not tried to do so after BBC relinquished half the rights to Sky. Will make the effort to pay for Sky in the early races this season, but if Mercedes sweep everything, interest will probably wane and I'll have to catch the highlights.



The problem that I see is that FIA never try to address the cause of the decreased spectacle. I'm not talking about dominance of a team--this has happened twice since I started following the sport diligently (RBR and Merc), and I do not see it as a problem as it is natural for teams to dominate when big regulation changes happen and/or when big manufacturers with loads to spent are involved. I believe that manufacturer involvement is important for F1 as it makes the sport one of the 'heavy weight' category.

The problem is when drivers complain that they cannot follow cars closely to do an overtake, as they suffer big understeer due to turbulence/dirty air and the tyres destroy themselves. This means that you need very big performance differential between cars for overtakes to happen. But these overtakes are too easy, due to the higher performance differential. You don't get to see real bravery on the brakes between drivers often.

It seems to me that all of these issues are caused by too much dependence on front wing related aero? Tyres being unable to take the abuse is an artificial restriction, that was brought in to limit cars from going faster and to put cars out of position by making them pit. Remember the W04 that was mega in qualifying but destroyed its tyres? Remember the RB9 that caused extreme deformation of the tyres due to the lateral loads it put on while cornering and hence suffered extreme degradation? It was exciting at first because of the randomness of the whole thing, but you start to realise that it really is artificial and unfairly punishing the better cars. But if I understand it right, the type of aero that we have is what is making all these issues, which the tyres are trying to solve.

It also seems to me that FIA are inventing rules arbitrarily to simply put the faster cars out of position in an effort to encourage more overtaking. The latest qualifying rules is a perfect example of that. But what they IMO fail to realise is that, the overtakes are too easy anyway for the faster cars because of the big performance differential. Oh and, they have DRS which makes it doubly easier. It's too gimmicky. The DRS was a recognition of this aero problem, but the solution is not attacking the cause but simply papering over the cracks.

Another thing I observe is that the manufacturers have too much power in the governance of the sport and they basically hold the sport to ransom, if they don't have their way. I find this unacceptable.

In saying all of this, I really don't know what a real solution will look like, as aero is what individual teams have the most influence over. So, trying to limit it seems counter productive.

Dr Z

Original Poster:

3,396 posts

170 months

Saturday 5th March 2016
quotequote all
kambites said:
The first stage of answering that question would be coming to some sort of consensus about what its purpose is.
If I have to define this, it would go along the lines of: Be the premier motor sport category in the world, attracting the top drivers and providing entertainment to fans. You often hear term 'pinnacle of motor sport' gets bandied about, and in my understanding it means that it is the fastest motorsport category, testing the limits of man and machine. You look up a circuit that F1 goes to and the fastest lap will have been set by an F1 car: that would satisfy a lot of the criteria. I'm not sure being a technological showcase is F1s ultimate aim, but it can be a secondary effect of regulations agreed to by the stakeholders.

I'm sure a lot of folk on both sides of the debate would find this agreeable. But one might disagree based on historical views of grand prix racing but modern F1 is far removed from that in a lot of ways.

greygoose

8,224 posts

194 months

Saturday 5th March 2016
quotequote all
Like most sports it just seems to be a business nowadays with the aim to extract as much money out of sponsors and tv as possible.

Evangelion

7,639 posts

177 months

Sunday 6th March 2016
quotequote all
In my opinion, the purpose of F1 is to entertain me. In this it has been failing for years.

Downforce is at the root of all F1's problems AFAIC. When it goes, my interest will return.

Dr Z

Original Poster:

3,396 posts

170 months

Sunday 6th March 2016
quotequote all
I came across something good, that I wanted to post up but since downforce was brought up...

As it stands, I believe F1 is on the right track with regards to the grip/power balance. Check out this comparison of the 2013 vs 2015 pole laps at the Abu Dhabi GP:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FT3LfqRzUw

Webber did a 1:39:96, and Rosberg did 1:40:24. Only a few tenths difference but that RB9 looks absolutely on rails compared to the W06. You could see the W06 pushing out in several corners as the power comes in, could see Rosberg really working the wheel to get the car in to the corners. But this car was the class of the field! Even Vettel's race lap record set in 2009 looks very serene in comparison.

Edited by Dr Z on Sunday 6th March 16:54

The Hypno-Toad

12,249 posts

204 months

Thursday 10th March 2016
quotequote all
Interesting news on two fronts today.

Firstly, the boss of Force India having to flee errr...... India on account of the authorities there were about to seize his passport and bring him in for questioning. The reason is that apparently he owes various different Indian banks somewhere in the region of £900 million in unpaid loans. Maybe Aston Martin did some due diligence and that was the reason for that deal falling through?

And bearing that in mind and who brands want to be associated with, it seems that one brand that have both a vast and very successful history in motorsport have decided that Formula E is where they want to be. GULF have decided that the are going to be title sponsor of Super Aguri for the remainder of the FE season.
It clearly says something when an oil company and one with a very strong record in a lot of motorsport goes to an all-electric series. Clearly, their budget wouldn't have got them an F1 title deal but I would imagine, given the current market value of the sport, it would have got them a pretty big sticker.

To me both of these two stories are very concerning.


Adam Ansel

695 posts

105 months

Thursday 10th March 2016
quotequote all
The Hypno-Toad said:
Interesting news on two fronts today.

Firstly, the boss of Force India having to flee errr...... India on account of the authorities there were about to seize his passport and bring him in for questioning. The reason is that apparently he owes various different Indian banks somewhere in the region of £900 million in unpaid loans. Maybe Aston Martin did some due diligence and that was the reason for that deal falling through?

And bearing that in mind and who brands want to be associated with, it seems that one brand that have both a vast and very successful history in motorsport have decided that Formula E is where they want to be. GULF have decided that the are going to be title sponsor of Super Aguri for the remainder of the FE season.
It clearly says something when an oil company and one with a very strong record in a lot of motorsport goes to an all-electric series. Clearly, their budget wouldn't have got them an F1 title deal but I would imagine, given the current market value of the sport, it would have got them a pretty big sticker.

To me both of these two stories are very concerning.
It would be sweet serendipity if Formula E grew and grew whilst F1 shrank and shrank until Formula E became the premium product. There have been some recent breakthroughs in battery technology that will make production before too long, which will make Formula E even more relevant to the real world and far more of a spectacle.
It is deeply ironic that Formula 1 should be in such deep trouble when it has the finest grid of drivers ever in its entire history. The big problem is aero, it makes the cars unable to follow each other and doesn't reward driver skill, races are won by engineers like Adrian Newey, not by drivers. Tyres come second. We need F1 rules in which the driver is genuinely pushing the edges of adhesion in every corner, as happened in its previous golden ages. It really is about time that wings were completely banned, except for a basic plank at the front.

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Thursday 10th March 2016
quotequote all
Aero and downforce has been a significant problem for at least 20 years.

Derek Smith

45,513 posts

247 months

Thursday 10th March 2016
quotequote all
There was a fair bit recently on Ecclestone bad-mouthing F1, He reckoned it has all gone wrong somewhere along the lines.

I reckon he should get in touch with the bloke in charge and ask him to sort it all out.

For once in my life I'm with the little guy. It does need reworking. A good start might be accepting that Mercedes have no responsibility to help other teams compete with them, that's the organiser's role. We didn't see Red Bull giving away their aerodynamic secrets, nor Ecclestone telling them to do so come to that.

I wonder if he's considered whether bigging up F1 might be a good idea.

F1 hasn't got a purpose as such. It has no responsibility to be entertaining. It need not bother with helping out the motor industry. Football makes no sense, nor does golf. Why should F1, out of all sports, have a purpose? You might as well ask what the point of bird watching is.

It needs to be entertaining to attract the viewing public and so the sponsors, but it could run without that aspect. It used to. But at the base line, it can do what it wants.

I went to see some Mini racing last year. It was fun to watch, the crowds were thin, but remarkably knowledgeable, and its purpose was clear enough: to let amateurs drive around the circuit, bringing a little income to it, and allowing the drivers to have something to more or less base what they'll say on at the pub later that evening.


BarbaricAvatar

1,416 posts

147 months

Thursday 10th March 2016
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
There was a fair bit recently on Ecclestone bad-mouthing F1, He reckoned it has all gone wrong somewhere along the lines.

I reckon he should get in touch with the bloke in charge and ask him to sort it all out.

For once in my life I'm with the little guy. It does need reworking. A good start might be accepting that Mercedes have no responsibility to help other teams compete with them, that's the organiser's role. We didn't see Red Bull giving away their aerodynamic secrets, nor Ecclestone telling them to do so come to that.

I wonder if he's considered whether bigging up F1 might be a good idea.

F1 hasn't got a purpose as such. It has no responsibility to be entertaining. It need not bother with helping out the motor industry. Football makes no sense, nor does golf. Why should F1, out of all sports, have a purpose? You might as well ask what the point of bird watching is.

It needs to be entertaining to attract the viewing public and so the sponsors, but it could run without that aspect. It used to. But at the base line, it can do what it wants.

I went to see some Mini racing last year. It was fun to watch, the crowds were thin, but remarkably knowledgeable, and its purpose was clear enough: to let amateurs drive around the circuit, bringing a little income to it, and allowing the drivers to have something to more or less base what they'll say on at the pub later that evening.
It's ironic when you think about it. Everyone moans about Bernie not doing a good job, but failing to understand that Bernie is merely a face for a committee that he has to please nowadays. If he actually was the all-conquering boss that he used to be, Formula 1 wouldn't have slipped into the hole that it now finds itself in.
He could fix it, he's just not allowed to so now he spends his time making ridiculous jokes about what should be done knowing that he can't do a thing.
Even the rulemakers don't understand F1 (see recent qualifying change), the race stewards were clueless until they started getting driver opinions and venue organisers rely far too heavily on a single track designer who has had precisely zero new ideas since doing Istanbul Park (still his greatest achievement). The sport can be fixed but they've taken all the power away from the one person who's got the balls to stand up and do it.

Edited by BarbaricAvatar on Thursday 10th March 17:17

rdjohn

6,135 posts

194 months

Thursday 10th March 2016
quotequote all
Vaud said:
i think we need them, but I'd much prefer a cost capped formula with fewer rules, though it would be hard to police.

£50M

any engine
any aspiration
fuel - maybe based on aspiration
a min weight
standard tyre sets (as now)
some general aero rules for safety (no skirts, etc)
HANS, impact tests as now

Away they go...

£50M would entice more manufacturers, would be chaos for a few seasons and maybe we would even have pre qualification again
This is about right, fuel flow restrictions need to be applied.

Policing the costs can be achieved easily, particularly if the cost of being found cheating results in a 10-year ban. The only thing that needs to be guarded against is AMG spending £200 million building engines and charging Mercedes GP £5million. Perhaps £50million is now too low, but in principle, this is the way the Formula should be being based.

The first thing to rule-out is the ability to buy success: all we need are the best drivers assisted by a few of the best engineers.


markcoznottz

7,155 posts

223 months

Thursday 10th March 2016
quotequote all
BarbaricAvatar said:
Derek Smith said:
There was a fair bit recently on Ecclestone bad-mouthing F1, He reckoned it has all gone wrong somewhere along the lines.

I reckon he should get in touch with the bloke in charge and ask him to sort it all out.

For once in my life I'm with the little guy. It does need reworking. A good start might be accepting that Mercedes have no responsibility to help other teams compete with them, that's the organiser's role. We didn't see Red Bull giving away their aerodynamic secrets, nor Ecclestone telling them to do so come to that.

I wonder if he's considered whether bigging up F1 might be a good idea.

F1 hasn't got a purpose as such. It has no responsibility to be entertaining. It need not bother with helping out the motor industry. Football makes no sense, nor does golf. Why should F1, out of all sports, have a purpose? You might as well ask what the point of bird watching is.

It needs to be entertaining to attract the viewing public and so the sponsors, but it could run without that aspect. It used to. But at the base line, it can do what it wants.

I went to see some Mini racing last year. It was fun to watch, the crowds were thin, but remarkably knowledgeable, and its purpose was clear enough: to let amateurs drive around the circuit, bringing a little income to it, and allowing the drivers to have something to more or less base what they'll say on at the pub later that evening.
It's ironic when you think about it. Everyone moans about Bernie not doing a good job, but failing to understand that Bernie is merely a face for a committee that he has to please nowadays. If he actually was the all-conquering boss that he used to be, Formula 1 wouldn't have slipped into the hole that it now finds itself in.
He could fix it, he's just not allowed to so now he spends his time making ridiculous jokes about what should be done knowing that he can't do a thing.
Even the rulemakers don't understand F1 (see recent qualifying change), the race stewards were clueless until they started getting driver opinions and venue organisers rely far too heavily on a single track designer who has had precisely zero new ideas since doing Istanbul Park (still his greatest achievement). The sport can be fixed but they've taken all the power away from the one person who's got the balls to stand up and do it.

Edited by BarbaricAvatar on Thursday 10th March 17:17
Yes but it's ok, his daughters got gold plated diamond encrusted taps in her dog washing station. Somewhere along the line the bloke went soft, probably something to do with his wife.