Has F1 failed in its purpose?
Discussion
BarbaricAvatar said:
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.
The irony is that not everyone does moan about good ol' Bernie. Some suggest he's done a great job, bringing the sport into the 21st century by, well that's no all that clear.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
So who is to blame if not the bloke in overall charge, the person who brought F1 to this point?
At one time he had total control, having a little poodle as his acceptable face. The position the sport is in now is as a result of Ecclestone. He used to be the all conquering maestro. He was best mates with the previous 2 FIA bosses. He doesn't bother with the current one as all power has been removed from the FIA.
The powers were not 'taken away'. He went for the money.
Ecclestone never, ever stood up for the sport. His only interest was what he could get out of it, at least once he left Brabham. F1 is his creation. That those in charge are neutered is as a result of him. He won't save the sport, he doesn't want to.
The irony is that he is complaining about things which are not wrong. That Merc dominating for two years is only unusual in the sense that previously, back to 2000, Ferrari had five years at the top, and Red Bull four. In the former case, there was only one driver in the team. To a certain extent it goes for the latter as well.
Where was good ol' Ecclestone in, say, at the beginning of 2004? Was he moaning about one team dominating? Or was he counting his money?
The sport has a history of one team, or in the case of Williams and McLaren two teams, dominating.
F1 is a product of Ecclestone's management. He's pulled the strings. He stepped back, decided to sell up and remain, leaving a power vacuum. The teams have authority but don't run the sport, the FIA can make rules, but are neutered. And CVC? They don't seem able to make up their minds to sell.
Every time we hear Eclestone spout off we are told that the various 'sides' want him out, so if he had the best interests of the sport at heart, he should go. But with the backing of CVC, he stays. And the current situation will remain until CVC sells up or he goes. Until then there will be no significant changes.
Derek Smith said:
The irony is that not everyone does moan about good ol' Bernie. Some suggest he's done a great job, bringing the sport into the 21st century by, well that's no all that clear.
So who is to blame if not the bloke in overall charge, the person who brought F1 to this point?
At one time he had total control, having a little poodle as his acceptable face. The position the sport is in now is as a result of Ecclestone. He used to be the all conquering maestro. He was best mates with the previous 2 FIA bosses. He doesn't bother with the current one as all power has been removed from the FIA.
The powers were not 'taken away'. He went for the money.
Ecclestone never, ever stood up for the sport. His only interest was what he could get out of it, at least once he left Brabham. F1 is his creation. That those in charge are neutered is as a result of him. He won't save the sport, he doesn't want to.
The irony is that he is complaining about things which are not wrong. That Merc dominating for two years is only unusual in the sense that previously, back to 2000, Ferrari had five years at the top, and Red Bull four. In the former case, there was only one driver in the team. To a certain extent it goes for the latter as well.
Where was good ol' Ecclestone in, say, at the beginning of 2004? Was he moaning about one team dominating? Or was he counting his money?
The sport has a history of one team, or in the case of Williams and McLaren two teams, dominating.
F1 is a product of Ecclestone's management. He's pulled the strings. He stepped back, decided to sell up and remain, leaving a power vacuum. The teams have authority but don't run the sport, the FIA can make rules, but are neutered. And CVC? They don't seem able to make up their minds to sell.
Every time we hear Eclestone spout off we are told that the various 'sides' want him out, so if he had the best interests of the sport at heart, he should go. But with the backing of CVC, he stays. And the current situation will remain until CVC sells up or he goes. Until then there will be no significant changes.
You appear to be hung up on the wrong things. F1 is not currently broken because 1 team is dominating, if you look through the history of the sport then you'd understand that this is quite common, you even said so yourself. So who is to blame if not the bloke in overall charge, the person who brought F1 to this point?
At one time he had total control, having a little poodle as his acceptable face. The position the sport is in now is as a result of Ecclestone. He used to be the all conquering maestro. He was best mates with the previous 2 FIA bosses. He doesn't bother with the current one as all power has been removed from the FIA.
The powers were not 'taken away'. He went for the money.
Ecclestone never, ever stood up for the sport. His only interest was what he could get out of it, at least once he left Brabham. F1 is his creation. That those in charge are neutered is as a result of him. He won't save the sport, he doesn't want to.
The irony is that he is complaining about things which are not wrong. That Merc dominating for two years is only unusual in the sense that previously, back to 2000, Ferrari had five years at the top, and Red Bull four. In the former case, there was only one driver in the team. To a certain extent it goes for the latter as well.
Where was good ol' Ecclestone in, say, at the beginning of 2004? Was he moaning about one team dominating? Or was he counting his money?
The sport has a history of one team, or in the case of Williams and McLaren two teams, dominating.
F1 is a product of Ecclestone's management. He's pulled the strings. He stepped back, decided to sell up and remain, leaving a power vacuum. The teams have authority but don't run the sport, the FIA can make rules, but are neutered. And CVC? They don't seem able to make up their minds to sell.
Every time we hear Eclestone spout off we are told that the various 'sides' want him out, so if he had the best interests of the sport at heart, he should go. But with the backing of CVC, he stays. And the current situation will remain until CVC sells up or he goes. Until then there will be no significant changes.
So why's the sport "broken" now because Mercedes have had 2 successful years? Hint: It's not the reason.
The problem with F1 now is that currently due to technical restrictions, testing limitations and budget caps; no one CAN catch up, they don't have the freedom they require to do so. The Ferrari era at the turn of the century was littered with great races, only 2002 and 2004 were almost foregone conclusions and this was largely due to rubbish reliability from the opposition. Speed-wise the teams were able to try and close the gap.
If Bernie were only interested in the money then he'd have set sail a long time ago, he's old enough and rich enough to not need to continue doing what he does. He's still around because he wants the power back, because he wants to DO something about the sport rather than watch everyone else passing the buck. He didn't step back, he was pushed back.
F1 in the 80's was a shambles, the circuit facilities were crap, even the TV coverage we take for granted nowdays was pretty bad (you didn't get shots of every part of the track for example). Ecclestone set standards for the host nations to follow and brought the sport into the 21st century, visiting new nations who actually had enough money to put some effort into hosting a race. There are countless journalists and personalities from F1 past who can give you an idea at how s
tty facilities used to be for commentators, journalists and TV crews. The more money there is in the sport, the better it is for everyone involved. And who's good at getting money out of people? Edited by BarbaricAvatar on Friday 11th March 07:03
Derek Smith said:
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 don't agree with the football or golf analogy--they could be analogous to motorsport in general but not to F1. Now, I don't follow either of the sports you mention but I guess F1 could be equated to the premiership? If the premiership doesn't have the best teams within the country with the most talented/best players in it, would it still garner such a worldwide following and would it therefore be any different to a lesser club level competition?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.
The argument that F1 can somehow exist in an aimless, purposeless, vacuum of sorts, completely divorced from any concern for fan entertainment or car manufacturer involvement betrays a flippant naivety about professional motorsport in general and modern F1 in particular.
F1 simply cannot exist in such a hypothetical vacuum while still retaining its gravitas and top dog status within motorsport. It would be no more than a glorified open wheeled clubbie meet like that mini race you went to. Whilst it may have existed like that back in the day, when it was probably in competition with other series for mainstream media coverage time, unlike now. It has stamped all over the others, and if it disappears up itself now, it is in danger of becoming irrelevant and therefore cease to exist as a professional motorsport category.
And what of other categories such as Formula Renault 3.5 or GP2 that lead to F1? They too will become irrelevant, in losing their purpose. The whole food chain collapses. I know that life goes on and stuff. But this is an existential crisis for a modern F1 fan. I readily agree that motorsport or any sport in general doesn't need to or indeed, have a 'purpose' as such.
greygoose said:
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.
Yes but surely the best way to extract the most money is to have the highest amount of people watching. If we all start watching something else on a Sunday afternoon, all that money will very quickly dry up. So the show (and not some contrived pastiche) are central to F1 thriving in the sport and business sense.BarbaricAvatar said:
You appear to be hung up on the wrong things. F1 is not currently broken because 1 team is dominating, if you look through the history of the sport then you'd understand that this is quite common, you even said so yourself.
So why's the sport "broken" now because Mercedes have had 2 successful years? Hint: It's not the reason.
The problem with F1 now is that currently due to technical restrictions, testing limitations and budget caps; no one CAN catch up, they don't have the freedom they require to do so. The Ferrari era at the turn of the century was littered with great races, only 2002 and 2004 were almost foregone conclusions and this was largely due to rubbish reliability from the opposition. Speed-wise the teams were able to try and close the gap.
If Bernie were only interested in the money then he'd have set sail a long time ago, he's old enough and rich enough to not need to continue doing what he does. He's still around because he wants the power back, because he wants to DO something about the sport rather than watch everyone else passing the buck. He didn't step back, he was pushed back.
F1 in the 80's was a shambles, the circuit facilities were crap, even the TV coverage we take for granted nowdays was pretty bad (you didn't get shots of every part of the track for example). Ecclestone set standards for the host nations to follow and brought the sport into the 21st century, visiting new nations who actually had enough money to put some effort into hosting a race. There are countless journalists and personalities from F1 past who can give you an idea at how stty facilities used to be for commentators, journalists and TV crews. The more money there is in the sport, the better it is for everyone involved. And who's good at getting money out of people?
I think you've missed my point. I know that one team, or in the case of the Williams/McLaren dual, two teams, dominating is the norm. You don't have to have a Phd in history to work that one out. I'm critical of Ecclestone.So why's the sport "broken" now because Mercedes have had 2 successful years? Hint: It's not the reason.
The problem with F1 now is that currently due to technical restrictions, testing limitations and budget caps; no one CAN catch up, they don't have the freedom they require to do so. The Ferrari era at the turn of the century was littered with great races, only 2002 and 2004 were almost foregone conclusions and this was largely due to rubbish reliability from the opposition. Speed-wise the teams were able to try and close the gap.
If Bernie were only interested in the money then he'd have set sail a long time ago, he's old enough and rich enough to not need to continue doing what he does. He's still around because he wants the power back, because he wants to DO something about the sport rather than watch everyone else passing the buck. He didn't step back, he was pushed back.
F1 in the 80's was a shambles, the circuit facilities were crap, even the TV coverage we take for granted nowdays was pretty bad (you didn't get shots of every part of the track for example). Ecclestone set standards for the host nations to follow and brought the sport into the 21st century, visiting new nations who actually had enough money to put some effort into hosting a race. There are countless journalists and personalities from F1 past who can give you an idea at how s
tty facilities used to be for commentators, journalists and TV crews. The more money there is in the sport, the better it is for everyone involved. And who's good at getting money out of people? Edited by BarbaricAvatar on Friday 11th March 07:03
You suggest particular problems with the sport. Others no doubt would have other ideas. However, whatever is causing the drop off in viewing figures and the lack of teams on the grid, the fault lies with those in charge. It is no good them complaining about it. It is their fault.
You diss the 80s. I've followed the sport for some years, going to Brands in '66. There was steady improvement in facilities, although hardly at a pace, over the years, and I'm not sure that was all down to Ecclestone.
As for TV: if anything, coverage of motor sport has lagged behind that of many other sports in the Ecclestone era. It is up there now, but is not a leader. It more or less kept its position, in the peloton, and developed at the demands of the broadcasters.
Your criticism of the '80s is a personal view. Mine of the time was somewhat different. I thoroughly enjoyed the sport. The emergence of McLaren, challenging Williams no less and then beating the team. So the toilets were of their time. So the hot dogs were rubbish. I took my own food. It was really fun in those day. What changed F1 was the professionalism of the British teams, including Brabham - their cars were always immaculate, as well and McLaren and Williams. They brought professionalism to the sport, although in doing so it became a business.
The Ferrari years were, for me, the sport's nadir. It's been great since, with lots of interest both on an off the track. But there is something wrong with a sport which is so rich yet costs appear to be the limiting factor for competitors. You suggest that by increasing costs other teams could catch up. I'm bemused by the logic of that one. Testing is expensive.
I don't think that Ecclestone has any interest in F1 other than as a source of considerable income. To suggest that he has as much money as he could ever need ignores the examples of other very rich people. They all, it seems, want more.
So just to clarify: the point of my post was to say that in my opinion having one team dominating, at least for two season, is not the problem with the sport. Ecclestone was wrong to suggest it is.
An interesting discussion in my past motorsport life with someone who used to work closely with Ron Dennis at Mclaren shed a lot of light on the 'problem' we all perceive with F1. Ron Dennis's mission statement was as follows:
"We are to make our media worth more than our competitors' media. That is our measure of success, the car is our media platform."
Winning races is just one means of achieving that. As is hiring sometimes controversial drivers; clever sponsorship engagement; the race meetings serving as a function venue for business deals completely unrelated to F1 (Part of clever sponsor engagement); application of developments and expertise to areas outside of F1 (Look at how many "Williams" businesses there are as an example); negotiating international relations... The list goes on. To quote my old boss, "If you think there's a lot of money on show or value in airtime, it's nothing compared to what changes hands in the paddock."
Its purpose therefore in the present form is to serve as a platform for business development. In the satisfaction of that purpose, it is enormously successful, although less so at the moment, but still not failing. The romantic notion of it being about racing and technological development is something that we as fans hold, along with drivers and engineers, expecting entertainment and eventually for the technology we see to be available in our road cars, but that isn't the purpose of F1 and hasn't been for some time.
In many ways, F1 is lagging behind many of the big car manufacturers. According to our CFD bods (In my present job), the computing power for CFD is typically worse than many OEMs, their simulators and simulation engines are (I can say from much first hand experience) relatively primitive and the technology is now an irrelevance. Tesla for example is doing far more for electric power train development than Formula E or F1 for hybrid drive trains.
The adoption of these hybrid units was largely a reaction to a changing business environment. In failing to negotiate 4 cylinder turbo development with the likes of Porsche and VAG for road car relevance (In case you hadn't noticed, they're doing just fine developing these without F1) and facing objections from the paddock because an inline 4-cylinder isn't suitable for use as a stressed member in the same way that a vee engine is, the sponsorship target moved to their existing base and those just outside who, being increasingly carbon-conscious, were more likely to stray from the incredibly wasteful business of F1 which was looking increasingly primitive and inappropriate in the wider automotive context.
It may sound obvious to say this, but fuel saving directly contradicts the format of sprint racing. These engines, as well as being very expensive, are of no road-car relevance and the rumour of their potential application to endurance racing has fallen completely flat, perhaps unsurprisingly. Fuel saving is resulting in drivers driving rather than racing and the reliance on tyres for excitement in the sport isn't sufficient. With regards to fans, gate receipts don't matter much, it's a very small amount of revenue for the sport.
The issue with the noise is interesting too. Again to quote my old boss with regards to sponsors and business deals in the V8 days and prior, "You'd get them in the garage for when you start the engine and they'd just sign. It made deals." It's a slight exaggeration to apply it in its entirety to every instance, but the spectacle and adrenaline had an interesting effect on the faces and wallets of many people. With this being gone, it's probably hurt business as much as it has hurt our latent desire to be rendered deaf.
All of this is of course even before you get down to the aerodynamic and kinetic issues with racing. Racing at such a high level is hard to achieve, but bodging business is relatively easy and I suspect that it is only once business starts to fail that we'll see a return to trying to genuinely achieve racing, but to bolster business most probably.
It'll be interesting for a while with the new tyre choices anyway, and at least these trumpets the cars are now wearing as exhausts will help us feel a bit less mugged after spending 6 hours sitting beside a windy racing track on race day just to get the view we want (on a GA ticket) of cars following each other around quite slowly in single file.
The drivers want to race, as do the engineers, so I can bear with it, but I know it for what it is and in a way I consequently enjoy it more when some genuine driving/team heroics give us an interesting afternoon.
"We are to make our media worth more than our competitors' media. That is our measure of success, the car is our media platform."
Winning races is just one means of achieving that. As is hiring sometimes controversial drivers; clever sponsorship engagement; the race meetings serving as a function venue for business deals completely unrelated to F1 (Part of clever sponsor engagement); application of developments and expertise to areas outside of F1 (Look at how many "Williams" businesses there are as an example); negotiating international relations... The list goes on. To quote my old boss, "If you think there's a lot of money on show or value in airtime, it's nothing compared to what changes hands in the paddock."
Its purpose therefore in the present form is to serve as a platform for business development. In the satisfaction of that purpose, it is enormously successful, although less so at the moment, but still not failing. The romantic notion of it being about racing and technological development is something that we as fans hold, along with drivers and engineers, expecting entertainment and eventually for the technology we see to be available in our road cars, but that isn't the purpose of F1 and hasn't been for some time.
In many ways, F1 is lagging behind many of the big car manufacturers. According to our CFD bods (In my present job), the computing power for CFD is typically worse than many OEMs, their simulators and simulation engines are (I can say from much first hand experience) relatively primitive and the technology is now an irrelevance. Tesla for example is doing far more for electric power train development than Formula E or F1 for hybrid drive trains.
The adoption of these hybrid units was largely a reaction to a changing business environment. In failing to negotiate 4 cylinder turbo development with the likes of Porsche and VAG for road car relevance (In case you hadn't noticed, they're doing just fine developing these without F1) and facing objections from the paddock because an inline 4-cylinder isn't suitable for use as a stressed member in the same way that a vee engine is, the sponsorship target moved to their existing base and those just outside who, being increasingly carbon-conscious, were more likely to stray from the incredibly wasteful business of F1 which was looking increasingly primitive and inappropriate in the wider automotive context.
It may sound obvious to say this, but fuel saving directly contradicts the format of sprint racing. These engines, as well as being very expensive, are of no road-car relevance and the rumour of their potential application to endurance racing has fallen completely flat, perhaps unsurprisingly. Fuel saving is resulting in drivers driving rather than racing and the reliance on tyres for excitement in the sport isn't sufficient. With regards to fans, gate receipts don't matter much, it's a very small amount of revenue for the sport.
The issue with the noise is interesting too. Again to quote my old boss with regards to sponsors and business deals in the V8 days and prior, "You'd get them in the garage for when you start the engine and they'd just sign. It made deals." It's a slight exaggeration to apply it in its entirety to every instance, but the spectacle and adrenaline had an interesting effect on the faces and wallets of many people. With this being gone, it's probably hurt business as much as it has hurt our latent desire to be rendered deaf.
All of this is of course even before you get down to the aerodynamic and kinetic issues with racing. Racing at such a high level is hard to achieve, but bodging business is relatively easy and I suspect that it is only once business starts to fail that we'll see a return to trying to genuinely achieve racing, but to bolster business most probably.
It'll be interesting for a while with the new tyre choices anyway, and at least these trumpets the cars are now wearing as exhausts will help us feel a bit less mugged after spending 6 hours sitting beside a windy racing track on race day just to get the view we want (on a GA ticket) of cars following each other around quite slowly in single file.
The drivers want to race, as do the engineers, so I can bear with it, but I know it for what it is and in a way I consequently enjoy it more when some genuine driving/team heroics give us an interesting afternoon.
Edited by NuddyRap on Friday 11th March 16:32
NuddyRap said:
An interesting discussion in my past motorsport life with someone who used to work closely with Ron Dennis at Mclaren shed a lot of light on the 'problem' we all perceive with F1. Ron Dennis's mission statement was as follows:
"We are to make our media worth more than our competitors' media. That is our measure of success, the car is our media platform."
Winning races is just one means of achieving that. As is hiring sometimes controversial drivers; clever sponsorship engagement; the race meetings serving as a function venue for business deals completely unrelated to F1 (Part of clever sponsor engagement); application of developments and expertise to areas outside of F1 (Look at how many "Williams" businesses there are as an example); negotiating international relations... The list goes on. To quote my old boss, "If you think there's a lot of money on show or value in airtime, it's nothing compared to what changes hands in the paddock."
Its purpose therefore in the present form is to serve as a platform for business development. In the satisfaction of that purpose, it is enormously successful, although less so at the moment, but still not failing. The romantic notion of it being about racing and technological development is something that we as fans hold, along with drivers and engineers, expecting entertainment and eventually for the technology we see to be available in our road cars, but that isn't the purpose of F1 and hasn't been for some time.
In many ways, F1 is lagging behind many of the big car manufacturers. According to our CFD bods (In my present job), the computing power for CFD is typically worse than many OEMs, their simulators and simulation engines are (I can say from much first hand experience) relatively primitive and the technology is now an irrelevance. Tesla for example is doing far more for electric power train development than Formula E or F1 for hybrid drive trains.
The adoption of these hybrid units was largely a reaction to a changing business environment. In failing to negotiate 4 cylinder turbo development with the likes of Porsche and VAG for road car relevance (In case you hadn't noticed, they're doing just fine developing these without F1) and facing objections from the paddock because an inline 4-cylinder isn't suitable for use as a stressed member in the same way that a vee engine is, the sponsorship target moved to their existing base and those just outside who, being increasingly carbon-conscious, were more likely to stray from the incredibly wasteful business of F1 which was looking increasingly primitive and inappropriate in the wider automotive context.
It may sound obvious to say this, but fuel saving directly contradicts the format of sprint racing. These engines, as well as being very expensive, are of no road-car relevance and the rumour of their potential application to endurance racing has fallen completely flat, perhaps unsurprisingly. Fuel saving is resulting in drivers driving rather than racing and the reliance on tyres for excitement in the sport isn't sufficient. With regards to fans, gate receipts don't matter much, it's a very small amount of revenue for the sport.
The issue with the noise is interesting too. Again to quote my old boss with regards to sponsors and business deals in the V8 days and prior, "You'd get them in the garage for when you start the engine and they'd just sign. It made deals." It's a slight exaggeration to apply it in its entirety to every instance, but the spectacle and adrenaline had an interesting effect on the faces and wallets of many people. With this being gone, it's probably hurt business as much as it has hurt our latent desire to be rendered deaf.
All of this is of course even before you get down to the aerodynamic and kinetic issues with racing. Racing at such a high level is hard to achieve, but bodging business is relatively easy and I suspect that it is only once business starts to fail that we'll see a return to trying to genuinely achieve racing, but to bolster business most probably.
It'll be interesting for a while with the new tyre choices anyway, and at least these trumpets the cars are now wearing as exhausts will help us feel a bit less mugged after spending 6 hours sitting beside a windy racing track on race day just to get the view we want (on a GA ticket) of cars following each other around quite slowly in single file.
The drivers want to race, as do the engineers, so I can bear with it, but I know it for what it is and in a way I consequently enjoy it more when some genuine driving/team heroics give us an interesting afternoon.
McLaren's motto in the 80s and 90s was 'The Business of Winning', and that sort of pointed to how Dennis wants to appear."We are to make our media worth more than our competitors' media. That is our measure of success, the car is our media platform."
Winning races is just one means of achieving that. As is hiring sometimes controversial drivers; clever sponsorship engagement; the race meetings serving as a function venue for business deals completely unrelated to F1 (Part of clever sponsor engagement); application of developments and expertise to areas outside of F1 (Look at how many "Williams" businesses there are as an example); negotiating international relations... The list goes on. To quote my old boss, "If you think there's a lot of money on show or value in airtime, it's nothing compared to what changes hands in the paddock."
Its purpose therefore in the present form is to serve as a platform for business development. In the satisfaction of that purpose, it is enormously successful, although less so at the moment, but still not failing. The romantic notion of it being about racing and technological development is something that we as fans hold, along with drivers and engineers, expecting entertainment and eventually for the technology we see to be available in our road cars, but that isn't the purpose of F1 and hasn't been for some time.
In many ways, F1 is lagging behind many of the big car manufacturers. According to our CFD bods (In my present job), the computing power for CFD is typically worse than many OEMs, their simulators and simulation engines are (I can say from much first hand experience) relatively primitive and the technology is now an irrelevance. Tesla for example is doing far more for electric power train development than Formula E or F1 for hybrid drive trains.
The adoption of these hybrid units was largely a reaction to a changing business environment. In failing to negotiate 4 cylinder turbo development with the likes of Porsche and VAG for road car relevance (In case you hadn't noticed, they're doing just fine developing these without F1) and facing objections from the paddock because an inline 4-cylinder isn't suitable for use as a stressed member in the same way that a vee engine is, the sponsorship target moved to their existing base and those just outside who, being increasingly carbon-conscious, were more likely to stray from the incredibly wasteful business of F1 which was looking increasingly primitive and inappropriate in the wider automotive context.
It may sound obvious to say this, but fuel saving directly contradicts the format of sprint racing. These engines, as well as being very expensive, are of no road-car relevance and the rumour of their potential application to endurance racing has fallen completely flat, perhaps unsurprisingly. Fuel saving is resulting in drivers driving rather than racing and the reliance on tyres for excitement in the sport isn't sufficient. With regards to fans, gate receipts don't matter much, it's a very small amount of revenue for the sport.
The issue with the noise is interesting too. Again to quote my old boss with regards to sponsors and business deals in the V8 days and prior, "You'd get them in the garage for when you start the engine and they'd just sign. It made deals." It's a slight exaggeration to apply it in its entirety to every instance, but the spectacle and adrenaline had an interesting effect on the faces and wallets of many people. With this being gone, it's probably hurt business as much as it has hurt our latent desire to be rendered deaf.
All of this is of course even before you get down to the aerodynamic and kinetic issues with racing. Racing at such a high level is hard to achieve, but bodging business is relatively easy and I suspect that it is only once business starts to fail that we'll see a return to trying to genuinely achieve racing, but to bolster business most probably.
It'll be interesting for a while with the new tyre choices anyway, and at least these trumpets the cars are now wearing as exhausts will help us feel a bit less mugged after spending 6 hours sitting beside a windy racing track on race day just to get the view we want (on a GA ticket) of cars following each other around quite slowly in single file.
The drivers want to race, as do the engineers, so I can bear with it, but I know it for what it is and in a way I consequently enjoy it more when some genuine driving/team heroics give us an interesting afternoon.
Edited by NuddyRap on Friday 11th March 16:32
Yet he's an F1 nerd. I've met him twice and the occasions were markedly different. When Senna's McL was 7/10ths off the pace in 90/91 (the year he refused to sign a contract) he was 100% concentrated on racing and couldn't give a damn about business. He didn't even turn up for the F1 Paddock Club briefing, leaving it to a monosyllabic Senna and a rude and abrupt Berger. The mechanics made up for their poor performance though. The second time was when he was in the #1 McLaren F1 car, taking it up the hill for the first time at the GFoS, when he was charming, enthusiastic and like a little kid with his little, but rather expensive, toy.
A friend of mine was involved in negotiations for sponsorship with him. He shook hands on the deal. My mate reckoned he confused everyone by being so old fashioned. His word was good and assumed everyone else's was as well.
So a complex bloke in the same way Williams is, but both are dedicated to F1.
I agree with you that the format for F1 is business led; the returns are everything. So the falling figures, the lack of sponsorship tend to suggest that the team owners are not too happy with the direction it is going.
I'm happy for the teams to get their money's worth. We get nothing for nothing and they pay the piper. They don't call the tune though.
Mind you, I suspect that if the teams had control it would be a disaster.
NuddyRap said:
An interesting discussion in my past motorsport life with someone who used to work closely with Ron Dennis at Mclaren shed a lot of light on the 'problem' we all perceive with F1. Ron Dennis's mission statement was as follows:
"We are to make our media worth more than our competitors' media. That is our measure of success, the car is our media platform."
Winning races is just one means of achieving that. As is hiring sometimes controversial drivers; clever sponsorship engagement; the race meetings serving as a function venue for business deals completely unrelated to F1 (Part of clever sponsor engagement); application of developments and expertise to areas outside of F1 (Look at how many "Williams" businesses there are as an example); negotiating international relations... The list goes on. To quote my old boss, "If you think there's a lot of money on show or value in airtime, it's nothing compared to what changes hands in the paddock."
Its purpose therefore in the present form is to serve as a platform for business development. In the satisfaction of that purpose, it is enormously successful, although less so at the moment, but still not failing. The romantic notion of it being about racing and technological development is something that we as fans hold, along with drivers and engineers, expecting entertainment and eventually for the technology we see to be available in our road cars, but that isn't the purpose of F1 and hasn't been for some time.
In many ways, F1 is lagging behind many of the big car manufacturers. According to our CFD bods (In my present job), the computing power for CFD is typically worse than many OEMs, their simulators and simulation engines are (I can say from much first hand experience) relatively primitive and the technology is now an irrelevance. Tesla for example is doing far more for electric power train development than Formula E or F1 for hybrid drive trains.
The adoption of these hybrid units was largely a reaction to a changing business environment. In failing to negotiate 4 cylinder turbo development with the likes of Porsche and VAG for road car relevance (In case you hadn't noticed, they're doing just fine developing these without F1) and facing objections from the paddock because an inline 4-cylinder isn't suitable for use as a stressed member in the same way that a vee engine is, the sponsorship target moved to their existing base and those just outside who, being increasingly carbon-conscious, were more likely to stray from the incredibly wasteful business of F1 which was looking increasingly primitive and inappropriate in the wider automotive context.
It may sound obvious to say this, but fuel saving directly contradicts the format of sprint racing. These engines, as well as being very expensive, are of no road-car relevance and the rumour of their potential application to endurance racing has fallen completely flat, perhaps unsurprisingly. Fuel saving is resulting in drivers driving rather than racing and the reliance on tyres for excitement in the sport isn't sufficient. With regards to fans, gate receipts don't matter much, it's a very small amount of revenue for the sport.
The issue with the noise is interesting too. Again to quote my old boss with regards to sponsors and business deals in the V8 days and prior, "You'd get them in the garage for when you start the engine and they'd just sign. It made deals." It's a slight exaggeration to apply it in its entirety to every instance, but the spectacle and adrenaline had an interesting effect on the faces and wallets of many people. With this being gone, it's probably hurt business as much as it has hurt our latent desire to be rendered deaf.
All of this is of course even before you get down to the aerodynamic and kinetic issues with racing. Racing at such a high level is hard to achieve, but bodging business is relatively easy and I suspect that it is only once business starts to fail that we'll see a return to trying to genuinely achieve racing, but to bolster business most probably.
It'll be interesting for a while with the new tyre choices anyway, and at least these trumpets the cars are now wearing as exhausts will help us feel a bit less mugged after spending 6 hours sitting beside a windy racing track on race day just to get the view we want (on a GA ticket) of cars following each other around quite slowly in single file.
The drivers want to race, as do the engineers, so I can bear with it, but I know it for what it is and in a way I consequently enjoy it more when some genuine driving/team heroics give us an interesting afternoon.
Fascinating. Thanks. "We are to make our media worth more than our competitors' media. That is our measure of success, the car is our media platform."
Winning races is just one means of achieving that. As is hiring sometimes controversial drivers; clever sponsorship engagement; the race meetings serving as a function venue for business deals completely unrelated to F1 (Part of clever sponsor engagement); application of developments and expertise to areas outside of F1 (Look at how many "Williams" businesses there are as an example); negotiating international relations... The list goes on. To quote my old boss, "If you think there's a lot of money on show or value in airtime, it's nothing compared to what changes hands in the paddock."
Its purpose therefore in the present form is to serve as a platform for business development. In the satisfaction of that purpose, it is enormously successful, although less so at the moment, but still not failing. The romantic notion of it being about racing and technological development is something that we as fans hold, along with drivers and engineers, expecting entertainment and eventually for the technology we see to be available in our road cars, but that isn't the purpose of F1 and hasn't been for some time.
In many ways, F1 is lagging behind many of the big car manufacturers. According to our CFD bods (In my present job), the computing power for CFD is typically worse than many OEMs, their simulators and simulation engines are (I can say from much first hand experience) relatively primitive and the technology is now an irrelevance. Tesla for example is doing far more for electric power train development than Formula E or F1 for hybrid drive trains.
The adoption of these hybrid units was largely a reaction to a changing business environment. In failing to negotiate 4 cylinder turbo development with the likes of Porsche and VAG for road car relevance (In case you hadn't noticed, they're doing just fine developing these without F1) and facing objections from the paddock because an inline 4-cylinder isn't suitable for use as a stressed member in the same way that a vee engine is, the sponsorship target moved to their existing base and those just outside who, being increasingly carbon-conscious, were more likely to stray from the incredibly wasteful business of F1 which was looking increasingly primitive and inappropriate in the wider automotive context.
It may sound obvious to say this, but fuel saving directly contradicts the format of sprint racing. These engines, as well as being very expensive, are of no road-car relevance and the rumour of their potential application to endurance racing has fallen completely flat, perhaps unsurprisingly. Fuel saving is resulting in drivers driving rather than racing and the reliance on tyres for excitement in the sport isn't sufficient. With regards to fans, gate receipts don't matter much, it's a very small amount of revenue for the sport.
The issue with the noise is interesting too. Again to quote my old boss with regards to sponsors and business deals in the V8 days and prior, "You'd get them in the garage for when you start the engine and they'd just sign. It made deals." It's a slight exaggeration to apply it in its entirety to every instance, but the spectacle and adrenaline had an interesting effect on the faces and wallets of many people. With this being gone, it's probably hurt business as much as it has hurt our latent desire to be rendered deaf.
All of this is of course even before you get down to the aerodynamic and kinetic issues with racing. Racing at such a high level is hard to achieve, but bodging business is relatively easy and I suspect that it is only once business starts to fail that we'll see a return to trying to genuinely achieve racing, but to bolster business most probably.
It'll be interesting for a while with the new tyre choices anyway, and at least these trumpets the cars are now wearing as exhausts will help us feel a bit less mugged after spending 6 hours sitting beside a windy racing track on race day just to get the view we want (on a GA ticket) of cars following each other around quite slowly in single file.
The drivers want to race, as do the engineers, so I can bear with it, but I know it for what it is and in a way I consequently enjoy it more when some genuine driving/team heroics give us an interesting afternoon.
Edited by NuddyRap on Friday 11th March 16:32
Derek Smith said:
NuddyRap said:
An interesting discussion in my past motorsport life with someone who used to work closely with Ron Dennis at Mclaren shed a lot of light on the 'problem' we all perceive with F1. Ron Dennis's mission statement was as follows:
"We are to make our media worth more than our competitors' media. That is our measure of success, the car is our media platform."
Winning races is just one means of achieving that. As is hiring sometimes controversial drivers; clever sponsorship engagement; the race meetings serving as a function venue for business deals completely unrelated to F1 (Part of clever sponsor engagement); application of developments and expertise to areas outside of F1 (Look at how many "Williams" businesses there are as an example); negotiating international relations... The list goes on. To quote my old boss, "If you think there's a lot of money on show or value in airtime, it's nothing compared to what changes hands in the paddock."
Its purpose therefore in the present form is to serve as a platform for business development. In the satisfaction of that purpose, it is enormously successful, although less so at the moment, but still not failing. The romantic notion of it being about racing and technological development is something that we as fans hold, along with drivers and engineers, expecting entertainment and eventually for the technology we see to be available in our road cars, but that isn't the purpose of F1 and hasn't been for some time.
In many ways, F1 is lagging behind many of the big car manufacturers. According to our CFD bods (In my present job), the computing power for CFD is typically worse than many OEMs, their simulators and simulation engines are (I can say from much first hand experience) relatively primitive and the technology is now an irrelevance. Tesla for example is doing far more for electric power train development than Formula E or F1 for hybrid drive trains.
The adoption of these hybrid units was largely a reaction to a changing business environment. In failing to negotiate 4 cylinder turbo development with the likes of Porsche and VAG for road car relevance (In case you hadn't noticed, they're doing just fine developing these without F1) and facing objections from the paddock because an inline 4-cylinder isn't suitable for use as a stressed member in the same way that a vee engine is, the sponsorship target moved to their existing base and those just outside who, being increasingly carbon-conscious, were more likely to stray from the incredibly wasteful business of F1 which was looking increasingly primitive and inappropriate in the wider automotive context.
It may sound obvious to say this, but fuel saving directly contradicts the format of sprint racing. These engines, as well as being very expensive, are of no road-car relevance and the rumour of their potential application to endurance racing has fallen completely flat, perhaps unsurprisingly. Fuel saving is resulting in drivers driving rather than racing and the reliance on tyres for excitement in the sport isn't sufficient. With regards to fans, gate receipts don't matter much, it's a very small amount of revenue for the sport.
The issue with the noise is interesting too. Again to quote my old boss with regards to sponsors and business deals in the V8 days and prior, "You'd get them in the garage for when you start the engine and they'd just sign. It made deals." It's a slight exaggeration to apply it in its entirety to every instance, but the spectacle and adrenaline had an interesting effect on the faces and wallets of many people. With this being gone, it's probably hurt business as much as it has hurt our latent desire to be rendered deaf.
All of this is of course even before you get down to the aerodynamic and kinetic issues with racing. Racing at such a high level is hard to achieve, but bodging business is relatively easy and I suspect that it is only once business starts to fail that we'll see a return to trying to genuinely achieve racing, but to bolster business most probably.
It'll be interesting for a while with the new tyre choices anyway, and at least these trumpets the cars are now wearing as exhausts will help us feel a bit less mugged after spending 6 hours sitting beside a windy racing track on race day just to get the view we want (on a GA ticket) of cars following each other around quite slowly in single file.
The drivers want to race, as do the engineers, so I can bear with it, but I know it for what it is and in a way I consequently enjoy it more when some genuine driving/team heroics give us an interesting afternoon.
McLaren's motto in the 80s and 90s was 'The Business of Winning', and that sort of pointed to how Dennis wants to appear."We are to make our media worth more than our competitors' media. That is our measure of success, the car is our media platform."
Winning races is just one means of achieving that. As is hiring sometimes controversial drivers; clever sponsorship engagement; the race meetings serving as a function venue for business deals completely unrelated to F1 (Part of clever sponsor engagement); application of developments and expertise to areas outside of F1 (Look at how many "Williams" businesses there are as an example); negotiating international relations... The list goes on. To quote my old boss, "If you think there's a lot of money on show or value in airtime, it's nothing compared to what changes hands in the paddock."
Its purpose therefore in the present form is to serve as a platform for business development. In the satisfaction of that purpose, it is enormously successful, although less so at the moment, but still not failing. The romantic notion of it being about racing and technological development is something that we as fans hold, along with drivers and engineers, expecting entertainment and eventually for the technology we see to be available in our road cars, but that isn't the purpose of F1 and hasn't been for some time.
In many ways, F1 is lagging behind many of the big car manufacturers. According to our CFD bods (In my present job), the computing power for CFD is typically worse than many OEMs, their simulators and simulation engines are (I can say from much first hand experience) relatively primitive and the technology is now an irrelevance. Tesla for example is doing far more for electric power train development than Formula E or F1 for hybrid drive trains.
The adoption of these hybrid units was largely a reaction to a changing business environment. In failing to negotiate 4 cylinder turbo development with the likes of Porsche and VAG for road car relevance (In case you hadn't noticed, they're doing just fine developing these without F1) and facing objections from the paddock because an inline 4-cylinder isn't suitable for use as a stressed member in the same way that a vee engine is, the sponsorship target moved to their existing base and those just outside who, being increasingly carbon-conscious, were more likely to stray from the incredibly wasteful business of F1 which was looking increasingly primitive and inappropriate in the wider automotive context.
It may sound obvious to say this, but fuel saving directly contradicts the format of sprint racing. These engines, as well as being very expensive, are of no road-car relevance and the rumour of their potential application to endurance racing has fallen completely flat, perhaps unsurprisingly. Fuel saving is resulting in drivers driving rather than racing and the reliance on tyres for excitement in the sport isn't sufficient. With regards to fans, gate receipts don't matter much, it's a very small amount of revenue for the sport.
The issue with the noise is interesting too. Again to quote my old boss with regards to sponsors and business deals in the V8 days and prior, "You'd get them in the garage for when you start the engine and they'd just sign. It made deals." It's a slight exaggeration to apply it in its entirety to every instance, but the spectacle and adrenaline had an interesting effect on the faces and wallets of many people. With this being gone, it's probably hurt business as much as it has hurt our latent desire to be rendered deaf.
All of this is of course even before you get down to the aerodynamic and kinetic issues with racing. Racing at such a high level is hard to achieve, but bodging business is relatively easy and I suspect that it is only once business starts to fail that we'll see a return to trying to genuinely achieve racing, but to bolster business most probably.
It'll be interesting for a while with the new tyre choices anyway, and at least these trumpets the cars are now wearing as exhausts will help us feel a bit less mugged after spending 6 hours sitting beside a windy racing track on race day just to get the view we want (on a GA ticket) of cars following each other around quite slowly in single file.
The drivers want to race, as do the engineers, so I can bear with it, but I know it for what it is and in a way I consequently enjoy it more when some genuine driving/team heroics give us an interesting afternoon.
Edited by NuddyRap on Friday 11th March 16:32
Yet he's an F1 nerd. I've met him twice and the occasions were markedly different. When Senna's McL was 7/10ths off the pace in 90/91 (the year he refused to sign a contract) he was 100% concentrated on racing and couldn't give a damn about business. He didn't even turn up for the F1 Paddock Club briefing, leaving it to a monosyllabic Senna and a rude and abrupt Berger. The mechanics made up for their poor performance though. The second time was when he was in the #1 McLaren F1 car, taking it up the hill for the first time at the GFoS, when he was charming, enthusiastic and like a little kid with his little, but rather expensive, toy.
A friend of mine was involved in negotiations for sponsorship with him. He shook hands on the deal. My mate reckoned he confused everyone by being so old fashioned. His word was good and assumed everyone else's was as well.
So a complex bloke in the same way Williams is, but both are dedicated to F1.
I agree with you that the format for F1 is business led; the returns are everything. So the falling figures, the lack of sponsorship tend to suggest that the team owners are not too happy with the direction it is going.
I'm happy for the teams to get their money's worth. We get nothing for nothing and they pay the piper. They don't call the tune though.
Mind you, I suspect that if the teams had control it would be a disaster.
NuddyRap said:
<snip>Its purpose therefore in the present form is to serve as a platform for business development. In the satisfaction of that purpose, it is enormously successful, although less so at the moment, but still not failing. The romantic notion of it being about racing and technological development is something that we as fans hold, along with drivers and engineers, expecting entertainment and eventually for the technology we see to be available in our road cars, but that isn't the purpose of F1 and hasn't been for some time.
<snip>
Interesting if somewhat depressing, machiavellian take on it, thanks. One hopes that characters such as Ron Dennis and Frank Williams who are racers at heart won't have to sell out, to keep going.<snip>
But if I may comment on one point you made as regards sprint racing:
NuddyRap said:
It may sound obvious to say this, but fuel saving directly contradicts the format of sprint racing. These engines, as well as being very expensive, are of no road-car relevance and the rumour of their potential application to endurance racing has fallen completely flat, perhaps unsurprisingly. Fuel saving is resulting in drivers driving rather than racing and the reliance on tyres for excitement in the sport isn't sufficient. With regards to fans, gate receipts don't matter much, it's a very small amount of revenue for the sport.
Has F1 ever been a flat out sprint race? I would suggest, right from the old days of Grand Prix racing to modern F1, that has never been the case. There has always been a level of conservation going on to varying degrees whether they may be fuel, tyres or engine performance. You could argue that previous conservationist racing (let's call it Grand Prix racing) was due to limitations in technology, but now technology has come on to a point that it is no longer possible and hence, artificial restrictions have to be brought in place. However, I would argue that the current fuel efficiency formula is pushing the teams (or atleast the engine manufacturers) in ways they were never pushed before and hence providing a natural limitation akin to previous eras. Well, you only get four engines for the whole season: in previous eras that will have been unthinkable but now it is possible. It is still a race, when teams are pushing the performance envelope within what is possible. F1 is still top dog, when the next category below can't see which way a current F1 car went. Whoever can build a bullet proof engine that consumes the least amount of the allocated fuel whilst still being faster than the rest, wins. This formula will mature when everyone can do what Mercedes HPP can do, and then the rule makers will have to think up something else that might provide that limitation. I would argue that this is in keeping with the ethos of Grand Prix racing. Fans clamouring for something akin to sprint racing are essentially asking for F1 to turn in to something it is not. I'm afraid, it will then lose its identity and more importantly, will lose its connection to it's own history. I don't believe that is healthy or warranted.
If you ask a group of F1 fans, many will look up on the V10 engine era as the best F1 had ever been. Indeed, the current F1 drivers who had driven those cars will agree that it required great human endurance to handle those machines. Many lap records were set in that era suggesting that was when F1 was its fastest. But have a look at those races: the Grand Prix racing will still remain. For example, the race lap record at the Melbourne GP circuit was set by Schumacher during the 2004 season, at lap 29 of the 58 lap race. He led every single lap of the race, but set the fastest lap only at lap 29. What was he doing for the remaining laps, if not conserving and going slower than he had to or ought to? This is the essence of F1 racing, IMO. It straddles the lines between endurance and sprint races. It will have periods when you are flat out and periods when you are conserving. Whoever gets the balance right for the prevailing conditions of the day, gets over the line first.
markcoznottz said:
Your stories sound suspiciously like regurgitated articles from old issues of autocar etc.
Not sure what to make of that comment. Would you care to explain?Dr Z said:
Has F1 ever been a flat out sprint race?
When refuelling was banned, one of the team managers said that he was pleased as the sport had become three sprint races in one.A bit of an exaggeration perhaps, but with more than a grain of truth.
Interesting point about whether we have ever had truly flat out racing. I recall 1991/1992 one race patrese was shadowing mansell, (no refuelling then remember), so both had the same amount of fuel, and patrese had to drop back because he used too much throttle in the corners so would effectively have run out of fuel before the race finished. Anybody any idea how much juice was left in the cars pre refuelling era?
markcoznottz said:
Interesting point about whether we have ever had truly flat out racing. I recall 1991/1992 one race patrese was shadowing mansell, (no refuelling then remember), so both had the same amount of fuel, and patrese had to drop back because he used too much throttle in the corners so would effectively have run out of fuel before the race finished. Anybody any idea how much juice was left in the cars pre refuelling era?
Brabham, 1970 British. Not a lot. What did you mean by the earlier comment?
markcoznottz said:
Your stories sound suspiciously like regurgitated articles from old issues of autocar etc.
... Perhaps that's because people who write such articles talk to the same people we work with or have experience of. It is a very small world, motorsport. You also don't have much time for reading working in that environment, and the company magazine subscriptions bought primarily to keep drivers, sitting bored in the sim control room after yet another software crash or hardware interfacing issue, distracted from looking at the clock or text-moaning to their managers or fellow drivers, seem quite full of nothing you haven't already heard or know to be exaggeration.
I could also mention, with regard to stories sounding like they're from an old magazine, being told by my ex colleague of many a time spent d*cking about with F3000 and F5000 cars in the grounds of the factory, on circuits etc. making circles and arcs of cones, sticking various things in the top of the cones and trying to dislodge them using oversteer and car's the rear wing end plates without knocking over the cones themselves, Apparently Mr Dennis was pretty good at this, infuriatingly so for some of his drivers, including Mansell in later days who he didn't get on with much anyway as we all know. But that certainly sounds like something typical regurgitated from a magazine...
It isn't, it's from the business development chap at my old place who sat two seats over from me, who also used to take part, but I've no reason to lie about anything or regurgitate magazine tidbits, it benefits me not a jot.
Take it as you will.
Derek Smith said:
Dr Z said:
Has F1 ever been a flat out sprint race?
When refuelling was banned, one of the team managers said that he was pleased as the sport had become three sprint races in one.A bit of an exaggeration perhaps, but with more than a grain of truth.
Dr Z said:
You're right, I was wrong. The refueling regulations during the V10 era, easily could count as sprint races as I guess they did not deviate too far away from the qualifying lap times running flat out at all times. Barring this exception, I don't think flat out racing happened when refueling was not allowed?
To be fair, I was quoting someone else. In fact, from memory, most cars didn't go flat out all the time. The first third, normally, would be to establish positions and then all the drivers did in the main was to go faster than their nearest competitor. This was fun when it was a teammate.Vettel normally tried for fastest lap 3 or so from the end. This was often considerably faster than anyone was going at the time so belying the suggesting they were flat out all the time.
There were the occasional races though . . .
Derek Smith said:
In fact, from memory, most cars didn't go flat out all the time. The first third, normally, would be to establish positions and then all the drivers did in the main was to go faster than their nearest competitor. This was fun when it was a teammate.
Vettel normally tried for fastest lap 3 or so from the end. This was often considerably faster than anyone was going at the time so belying the suggesting they were flat out all the time.
There were the occasional races though . . .
This seems right, now! My original point stands then...I tried to look at lap time data for the different cars for the 2004 Australian GP but couldn't find it. Vettel normally tried for fastest lap 3 or so from the end. This was often considerably faster than anyone was going at the time so belying the suggesting they were flat out all the time.
There were the occasional races though . . .
2004 Melbourne GP Pit Stop data
The link above reports that Schumacher 3-stopped for that race, suggesting he was trying to deploy the maximum available pace in his car. The lap record at lap 29, suggests this. After refuelling, he should have continued to set a faster lap on or before lap 45 when he stopped again, when the fuel load is likely to have been at it's lowest. But clearly he didn't. Race report suggests that Barrichello was pushing him quite hard in the early stages and had some issues with his car in the latter stages of the race so not challenging him for the race win. Schumacher then cruises the rest of the race.
The reason I kind of picked on it was, if I can show that the drivers were not going flat out at all times, having a bit of a margin during the perceived zenith of Formula 1, then it stands to reason that, flat out racing or being at the limit at all times was never part of the DNA in the first place.
As an aside, the race winning time difference between 2004 and 2015 races suggests that Schumacher in his F2004 would have likely lapped Hamilton in his W06, an astonishing FOUR times. Yet, you look at the full race classification ( 2004 and 2015) and the gaps between cars in the finishing order doesn't look all that different. We know that the F2004 dominated, just as the W06 dominated. Refuelling is not the answer, and I was glad when it was off the table for the 2017 regulation changes.
Edited by Dr Z on Sunday 13th March 16:40
The only thing i have against refuelling is that if there's a problem in the pitstop then it can totally ruin a race. Instead of losing the 3 or 4 secs that they do now it's 10+s for a botched refuelling stop, the amount of great situations that were nullified by fuel rig issues are countless.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff