Has F1 failed in its purpose?
Discussion
Interesting comments from Charlie reported by Sky concerning driver input in to changes introduced to improve the show.
I think they get a lot of say. We have, as you know, technical and sporting working group meetings, to which a driver is always invited. The take-up is very low, but they are invited and they get the agendas and the minutes of the meetings. There is a seat on the FIA Circuits Commission for a Formula One driver but again attendance is not as high as one might like.
They do get an opportunity every race weekend to sit, in this room for example, later this evening to discuss whatever they want to. We don't just talk about what’s happened on the track today, they talk about all sorts of things.
That’s another perfect opportunity to discuss anything they wish. I’m always happy to talk to them. We had a meeting in Barcelona, as you know, quite a few drivers actually turned up for it, which was nice. Lewis was invited but he didn’t come.I wonder if drivers have any kind of consensus on how to improve the spectacle. The few comments put out some drivers certainly doesn't appear that way.
Another thing I was wondering, we saw some signs of performance convergence starting to happen in the Australian GP. Is it the right time to bring wholesale changes to the formula in 2017? Surely, you would want convergence to happen so much that you go deep into diminishing returns? Surely, big changes for next year only increases the chances of another team dominating?
Charlie Whiting said:
I think they get a lot of say. We have, as you know, technical and sporting working group meetings, to which a driver is always invited. The take-up is very low, but they are invited and they get the agendas and the minutes of the meetings. There is a seat on the FIA Circuits Commission for a Formula One driver but again attendance is not as high as one might like.
They do get an opportunity every race weekend to sit, in this room for example, later this evening to discuss whatever they want to. We don't just talk about what’s happened on the track today, they talk about all sorts of things.
That’s another perfect opportunity to discuss anything they wish. I’m always happy to talk to them. We had a meeting in Barcelona, as you know, quite a few drivers actually turned up for it, which was nice. Lewis was invited but he didn’t come.
Another thing I was wondering, we saw some signs of performance convergence starting to happen in the Australian GP. Is it the right time to bring wholesale changes to the formula in 2017? Surely, you would want convergence to happen so much that you go deep into diminishing returns? Surely, big changes for next year only increases the chances of another team dominating?
Dr Z said:
Interesting comments from Charlie reported by Sky concerning driver input in to changes introduced to improve the show.
I think they get a lot of say. We have, as you know, technical and sporting working group meetings, to which a driver is always invited. The take-up is very low, but they are invited and they get the agendas and the minutes of the meetings. There is a seat on the FIA Circuits Commission for a Formula One driver but again attendance is not as high as one might like.
They do get an opportunity every race weekend to sit, in this room for example, later this evening to discuss whatever they want to. We don't just talk about what’s happened on the track today, they talk about all sorts of things.
That’s another perfect opportunity to discuss anything they wish. I’m always happy to talk to them. We had a meeting in Barcelona, as you know, quite a few drivers actually turned up for it, which was nice. Lewis was invited but he didn’t come.I wonder if drivers have any kind of consensus on how to improve the spectacle. The few comments put out some drivers certainly doesn't appear that way.
Another thing I was wondering, we saw some signs of performance convergence starting to happen in the Australian GP. Is it the right time to bring wholesale changes to the formula in 2017? Surely, you would want convergence to happen so much that you go deep into diminishing returns? Surely, big changes for next year only increases the chances of another team dominating?
But then when you hear from the drivers they say that when they provide input it gets ignored anyway. Charlie Whiting said:
I think they get a lot of say. We have, as you know, technical and sporting working group meetings, to which a driver is always invited. The take-up is very low, but they are invited and they get the agendas and the minutes of the meetings. There is a seat on the FIA Circuits Commission for a Formula One driver but again attendance is not as high as one might like.
They do get an opportunity every race weekend to sit, in this room for example, later this evening to discuss whatever they want to. We don't just talk about what’s happened on the track today, they talk about all sorts of things.
That’s another perfect opportunity to discuss anything they wish. I’m always happy to talk to them. We had a meeting in Barcelona, as you know, quite a few drivers actually turned up for it, which was nice. Lewis was invited but he didn’t come.
Another thing I was wondering, we saw some signs of performance convergence starting to happen in the Australian GP. Is it the right time to bring wholesale changes to the formula in 2017? Surely, you would want convergence to happen so much that you go deep into diminishing returns? Surely, big changes for next year only increases the chances of another team dominating?
I mean everyone knows the issue with the cars. Too much aero, too much wake coming off the car in front. The drivers say this repeatedly, the commentators/experts say this repeatedly, and what do we get for 2017, nothing to fix those issues.
As Hamilton just said today/yesterday, they can make the cars 5 secs faster but unless you fix the above you'll get the same problems, just 5 seconds faster a lap.
The drivers have just released a statement...quite punchy!
http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/35882820
https://twitter.com/andrewbensonf1/status/71264784...
http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/35882820
https://twitter.com/andrewbensonf1/status/71264784...
London424 said:
The drivers have just released a statement...quite punchy!
http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/35882820
https://twitter.com/andrewbensonf1/status/71264784...
Wow, that's a pretty big ask! Impressed that drivers have come to a consensus on this, with JB and Seb putting their name to it. Cynic in me says nothing will come of it.http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/35882820
https://twitter.com/andrewbensonf1/status/71264784...
f1 needs to look at its past success recent changes have not been for the benefit of the fans and making more and more changes won't help.
One change I'd like to see is longer races hell in the good old days wasn't a Grand Prix 200 odd laps. I'd like to see these drivers maintain their concentration for that long and be that consistent every single lap!
One change I'd like to see is longer races hell in the good old days wasn't a Grand Prix 200 odd laps. I'd like to see these drivers maintain their concentration for that long and be that consistent every single lap!
I don't know if I'm qualified to comment, only been following F1 since the days of Murray Walker doing a commentary of sorts over an insert into Grandstand about the previous week's race, but here goes.
F1 should be a massive pantomime of noise, colour, speed and danger. A bit like being invited out for a few "quiet drinks" by Freddie Mercury during his coke 'n' dwarfs phase. The audience (and by this I mean both TV and at the track) should be astounded by the way the drivers handle the cars, not the other way round. There should be a minimum amount of rules & regs. There should be no limit on engine size or fuel type, the only limitation being a maximum and minimum weight (including driver & fuel). The car should fit inside a box of set dimensions. The only downforce allowed should be generated by aerodynamic devices placed outside the wheelbase. These days I'm struggling to see the adverts on the cars because of all the ugly excrescences on the cars' bodies.
The drivers should be allowed to decide when they want to deploy DRS (or its equivalent) so that they can pass when they want to, not when the computer says they can. TV and F1 want to build the drivers up into heroes, and I don't decry their fitness and discipline, but Jesus, they're so boring "for sure". I expect the drivers to live in the country where the team is based and pay the relevant taxes in that country - until they retire, at which point they can scuttle off to Monaco as tax exiles. Perhaps this might "encourage" some of the longer in the tooth drivers to move over and let some new talent in - Yes Mr Button I'm looking at you, and don't try to avoid my baleful stare either Mr Alonso. Just think Fernando, you could have been filming a badly-dubbed TV advert last Sunday instead of soiling your Nomex underwear from an inverted position 3 feet above some gravel.
A manual clutch and gearbox should be mandatory. If these really are the best drivers in the world, I expect them to change gear for themselves. This would reduce the complexity of the drivetrain and reduce costs.
Testing should be unlimited, BUT all data obtained in testing is made available to all other teams, this includes aero and drivetrain data. That way the likes of McLaren, Ferrari and Mercedes can test as much as they like, but won't be able to gain an unfair advantage over the smaller teams just because they have all the dosh. If they don't want to give away all their secrets, then don't test. It's a self-limiting rule.
Tyres should last the WHOLE race. I'm not really excited by Hamilton/Vettel/Rosberg winning a race because of the computer geekery of spotty Sid at Enstone having written a better strategy program than his similarly complexionally-challenged counterpart at Woking. In the same way, the fact that Dave at Mercedes is better at changing a tyre in less than 2 seconds than Luigi from the Ferrari garage doesn't blow my skirt up.
I think what I'm saying is that if F1 is about entertainment, it lost the plot long ago, when it became impossible to get close enough to the car in front to overtake (remembering of course that the car in front was unlikely to be a Toyota). When a pit stop became a way to win a race rather than a reason for losing it and especially when I heard the words "Fernando is quicker than you".
I rest my case gentlemen.
F1 should be a massive pantomime of noise, colour, speed and danger. A bit like being invited out for a few "quiet drinks" by Freddie Mercury during his coke 'n' dwarfs phase. The audience (and by this I mean both TV and at the track) should be astounded by the way the drivers handle the cars, not the other way round. There should be a minimum amount of rules & regs. There should be no limit on engine size or fuel type, the only limitation being a maximum and minimum weight (including driver & fuel). The car should fit inside a box of set dimensions. The only downforce allowed should be generated by aerodynamic devices placed outside the wheelbase. These days I'm struggling to see the adverts on the cars because of all the ugly excrescences on the cars' bodies.
The drivers should be allowed to decide when they want to deploy DRS (or its equivalent) so that they can pass when they want to, not when the computer says they can. TV and F1 want to build the drivers up into heroes, and I don't decry their fitness and discipline, but Jesus, they're so boring "for sure". I expect the drivers to live in the country where the team is based and pay the relevant taxes in that country - until they retire, at which point they can scuttle off to Monaco as tax exiles. Perhaps this might "encourage" some of the longer in the tooth drivers to move over and let some new talent in - Yes Mr Button I'm looking at you, and don't try to avoid my baleful stare either Mr Alonso. Just think Fernando, you could have been filming a badly-dubbed TV advert last Sunday instead of soiling your Nomex underwear from an inverted position 3 feet above some gravel.
A manual clutch and gearbox should be mandatory. If these really are the best drivers in the world, I expect them to change gear for themselves. This would reduce the complexity of the drivetrain and reduce costs.
Testing should be unlimited, BUT all data obtained in testing is made available to all other teams, this includes aero and drivetrain data. That way the likes of McLaren, Ferrari and Mercedes can test as much as they like, but won't be able to gain an unfair advantage over the smaller teams just because they have all the dosh. If they don't want to give away all their secrets, then don't test. It's a self-limiting rule.
Tyres should last the WHOLE race. I'm not really excited by Hamilton/Vettel/Rosberg winning a race because of the computer geekery of spotty Sid at Enstone having written a better strategy program than his similarly complexionally-challenged counterpart at Woking. In the same way, the fact that Dave at Mercedes is better at changing a tyre in less than 2 seconds than Luigi from the Ferrari garage doesn't blow my skirt up.
I think what I'm saying is that if F1 is about entertainment, it lost the plot long ago, when it became impossible to get close enough to the car in front to overtake (remembering of course that the car in front was unlikely to be a Toyota). When a pit stop became a way to win a race rather than a reason for losing it and especially when I heard the words "Fernando is quicker than you".
I rest my case gentlemen.
Tootles the Taxi said:
I don't know if I'm qualified to comment, only been following F1 since the days of Murray Walker doing a commentary of sorts over an insert into Grandstand about the previous week's race, but here goes.
F1 should be a massive pantomime of noise, colour, speed and danger. A bit like being invited out for a few "quiet drinks" by Freddie Mercury during his coke 'n' dwarfs phase. The audience (and by this I mean both TV and at the track) should be astounded by the way the drivers handle the cars, not the other way round. There should be a minimum amount of rules & regs. There should be no limit on engine size or fuel type, the only limitation being a maximum and minimum weight (including driver & fuel). The car should fit inside a box of set dimensions. The only downforce allowed should be generated by aerodynamic devices placed outside the wheelbase. These days I'm struggling to see the adverts on the cars because of all the ugly excrescences on the cars' bodies.
The drivers should be allowed to decide when they want to deploy DRS (or its equivalent) so that they can pass when they want to, not when the computer says they can. TV and F1 want to build the drivers up into heroes, and I don't decry their fitness and discipline, but Jesus, they're so boring "for sure". I expect the drivers to live in the country where the team is based and pay the relevant taxes in that country - until they retire, at which point they can scuttle off to Monaco as tax exiles. Perhaps this might "encourage" some of the longer in the tooth drivers to move over and let some new talent in - Yes Mr Button I'm looking at you, and don't try to avoid my baleful stare either Mr Alonso. Just think Fernando, you could have been filming a badly-dubbed TV advert last Sunday instead of soiling your Nomex underwear from an inverted position 3 feet above some gravel.
A manual clutch and gearbox should be mandatory. If these really are the best drivers in the world, I expect them to change gear for themselves. This would reduce the complexity of the drivetrain and reduce costs.
Testing should be unlimited, BUT all data obtained in testing is made available to all other teams, this includes aero and drivetrain data. That way the likes of McLaren, Ferrari and Mercedes can test as much as they like, but won't be able to gain an unfair advantage over the smaller teams just because they have all the dosh. If they don't want to give away all their secrets, then don't test. It's a self-limiting rule.
Tyres should last the WHOLE race. I'm not really excited by Hamilton/Vettel/Rosberg winning a race because of the computer geekery of spotty Sid at Enstone having written a better strategy program than his similarly complexionally-challenged counterpart at Woking. In the same way, the fact that Dave at Mercedes is better at changing a tyre in less than 2 seconds than Luigi from the Ferrari garage doesn't blow my skirt up.
I think what I'm saying is that if F1 is about entertainment, it lost the plot long ago, when it became impossible to get close enough to the car in front to overtake (remembering of course that the car in front was unlikely to be a Toyota). When a pit stop became a way to win a race rather than a reason for losing it and especially when I heard the words "Fernando is quicker than you".
I rest my case gentlemen.
F1 should be a massive pantomime of noise, colour, speed and danger. A bit like being invited out for a few "quiet drinks" by Freddie Mercury during his coke 'n' dwarfs phase. The audience (and by this I mean both TV and at the track) should be astounded by the way the drivers handle the cars, not the other way round. There should be a minimum amount of rules & regs. There should be no limit on engine size or fuel type, the only limitation being a maximum and minimum weight (including driver & fuel). The car should fit inside a box of set dimensions. The only downforce allowed should be generated by aerodynamic devices placed outside the wheelbase. These days I'm struggling to see the adverts on the cars because of all the ugly excrescences on the cars' bodies.
The drivers should be allowed to decide when they want to deploy DRS (or its equivalent) so that they can pass when they want to, not when the computer says they can. TV and F1 want to build the drivers up into heroes, and I don't decry their fitness and discipline, but Jesus, they're so boring "for sure". I expect the drivers to live in the country where the team is based and pay the relevant taxes in that country - until they retire, at which point they can scuttle off to Monaco as tax exiles. Perhaps this might "encourage" some of the longer in the tooth drivers to move over and let some new talent in - Yes Mr Button I'm looking at you, and don't try to avoid my baleful stare either Mr Alonso. Just think Fernando, you could have been filming a badly-dubbed TV advert last Sunday instead of soiling your Nomex underwear from an inverted position 3 feet above some gravel.
A manual clutch and gearbox should be mandatory. If these really are the best drivers in the world, I expect them to change gear for themselves. This would reduce the complexity of the drivetrain and reduce costs.
Testing should be unlimited, BUT all data obtained in testing is made available to all other teams, this includes aero and drivetrain data. That way the likes of McLaren, Ferrari and Mercedes can test as much as they like, but won't be able to gain an unfair advantage over the smaller teams just because they have all the dosh. If they don't want to give away all their secrets, then don't test. It's a self-limiting rule.
Tyres should last the WHOLE race. I'm not really excited by Hamilton/Vettel/Rosberg winning a race because of the computer geekery of spotty Sid at Enstone having written a better strategy program than his similarly complexionally-challenged counterpart at Woking. In the same way, the fact that Dave at Mercedes is better at changing a tyre in less than 2 seconds than Luigi from the Ferrari garage doesn't blow my skirt up.
I think what I'm saying is that if F1 is about entertainment, it lost the plot long ago, when it became impossible to get close enough to the car in front to overtake (remembering of course that the car in front was unlikely to be a Toyota). When a pit stop became a way to win a race rather than a reason for losing it and especially when I heard the words "Fernando is quicker than you".
I rest my case gentlemen.
Is that you, Bernie?
Tootles the Taxi said:
I don't know if I'm qualified to comment, only been following F1 since the days of Murray Walker doing a commentary of sorts over an insert into Grandstand about the previous week's race, but here goes.
F1 should be a massive pantomime of noise, colour, speed and danger. A bit like being invited out for a few "quiet drinks" by Freddie Mercury during his coke 'n' dwarfs phase. The audience (and by this I mean both TV and at the track) should be astounded by the way the drivers handle the cars, not the other way round. There should be a minimum amount of rules & regs. There should be no limit on engine size or fuel type, the only limitation being a maximum and minimum weight (including driver & fuel). The car should fit inside a box of set dimensions. The only downforce allowed should be generated by aerodynamic devices placed outside the wheelbase. These days I'm struggling to see the adverts on the cars because of all the ugly excrescences on the cars' bodies.
The drivers should be allowed to decide when they want to deploy DRS (or its equivalent) so that they can pass when they want to, not when the computer says they can. TV and F1 want to build the drivers up into heroes, and I don't decry their fitness and discipline, but Jesus, they're so boring "for sure". I expect the drivers to live in the country where the team is based and pay the relevant taxes in that country - until they retire, at which point they can scuttle off to Monaco as tax exiles. Perhaps this might "encourage" some of the longer in the tooth drivers to move over and let some new talent in - Yes Mr Button I'm looking at you, and don't try to avoid my baleful stare either Mr Alonso. Just think Fernando, you could have been filming a badly-dubbed TV advert last Sunday instead of soiling your Nomex underwear from an inverted position 3 feet above some gravel.
A manual clutch and gearbox should be mandatory. If these really are the best drivers in the world, I expect them to change gear for themselves. This would reduce the complexity of the drivetrain and reduce costs.
Testing should be unlimited, BUT all data obtained in testing is made available to all other teams, this includes aero and drivetrain data. That way the likes of McLaren, Ferrari and Mercedes can test as much as they like, but won't be able to gain an unfair advantage over the smaller teams just because they have all the dosh. If they don't want to give away all their secrets, then don't test. It's a self-limiting rule.
Tyres should last the WHOLE race. I'm not really excited by Hamilton/Vettel/Rosberg winning a race because of the computer geekery of spotty Sid at Enstone having written a better strategy program than his similarly complexionally-challenged counterpart at Woking. In the same way, the fact that Dave at Mercedes is better at changing a tyre in less than 2 seconds than Luigi from the Ferrari garage doesn't blow my skirt up.
I think what I'm saying is that if F1 is about entertainment, it lost the plot long ago, when it became impossible to get close enough to the car in front to overtake (remembering of course that the car in front was unlikely to be a Toyota). When a pit stop became a way to win a race rather than a reason for losing it and especially when I heard the words "Fernando is quicker than you".
I rest my case gentlemen.
You expect the driver to live in the same country as the team, who are you, their mum?! F1 should be a massive pantomime of noise, colour, speed and danger. A bit like being invited out for a few "quiet drinks" by Freddie Mercury during his coke 'n' dwarfs phase. The audience (and by this I mean both TV and at the track) should be astounded by the way the drivers handle the cars, not the other way round. There should be a minimum amount of rules & regs. There should be no limit on engine size or fuel type, the only limitation being a maximum and minimum weight (including driver & fuel). The car should fit inside a box of set dimensions. The only downforce allowed should be generated by aerodynamic devices placed outside the wheelbase. These days I'm struggling to see the adverts on the cars because of all the ugly excrescences on the cars' bodies.
The drivers should be allowed to decide when they want to deploy DRS (or its equivalent) so that they can pass when they want to, not when the computer says they can. TV and F1 want to build the drivers up into heroes, and I don't decry their fitness and discipline, but Jesus, they're so boring "for sure". I expect the drivers to live in the country where the team is based and pay the relevant taxes in that country - until they retire, at which point they can scuttle off to Monaco as tax exiles. Perhaps this might "encourage" some of the longer in the tooth drivers to move over and let some new talent in - Yes Mr Button I'm looking at you, and don't try to avoid my baleful stare either Mr Alonso. Just think Fernando, you could have been filming a badly-dubbed TV advert last Sunday instead of soiling your Nomex underwear from an inverted position 3 feet above some gravel.
A manual clutch and gearbox should be mandatory. If these really are the best drivers in the world, I expect them to change gear for themselves. This would reduce the complexity of the drivetrain and reduce costs.
Testing should be unlimited, BUT all data obtained in testing is made available to all other teams, this includes aero and drivetrain data. That way the likes of McLaren, Ferrari and Mercedes can test as much as they like, but won't be able to gain an unfair advantage over the smaller teams just because they have all the dosh. If they don't want to give away all their secrets, then don't test. It's a self-limiting rule.
Tyres should last the WHOLE race. I'm not really excited by Hamilton/Vettel/Rosberg winning a race because of the computer geekery of spotty Sid at Enstone having written a better strategy program than his similarly complexionally-challenged counterpart at Woking. In the same way, the fact that Dave at Mercedes is better at changing a tyre in less than 2 seconds than Luigi from the Ferrari garage doesn't blow my skirt up.
I think what I'm saying is that if F1 is about entertainment, it lost the plot long ago, when it became impossible to get close enough to the car in front to overtake (remembering of course that the car in front was unlikely to be a Toyota). When a pit stop became a way to win a race rather than a reason for losing it and especially when I heard the words "Fernando is quicker than you".
I rest my case gentlemen.
Tootles, interesting to hear a fan's view from the Murray Walker era as you put it. Where to start! I don't think many of your ideas will work in today's climate. The world has moved on, I'm afraid.
In other news, the F1 Commission are to decide today, whether to revert to pre-2016 qualifying format or not. A few voices including Pirelli would like a tweaked format with Q1 and Q2 in the elimination style with longer session times to enable teams to react better rather than sitting helpless in the garage as the clock ticks down, and reverting to the old style Q3.
The only way I see this working is that teams will have to be given an extra set of Q3 qualifying tyre or else, I can see teams who used up two sets to get to Q3 will only do one run, like Ferrari did last race. I really hope they will think it through before foisting another muddled set of rules on us.
This goes back to the governance problem that F1 faces and the constant power struggle between the constructors/teams and the FIA or Bernie. Jon Noble in one of his articles questioned why these trials were not done in the remaining races after the championship was done and dusted last year. I think it's a valid point. However, I think these changes are being trialled now simply as a knee-jerk reaction to reduce perceived Mercedes dominance by Bernie. No thought behind it. It makes Bernie/FIA and the whole F1 governance structure, stupid and a laughing stock.
In other news, the F1 Commission are to decide today, whether to revert to pre-2016 qualifying format or not. A few voices including Pirelli would like a tweaked format with Q1 and Q2 in the elimination style with longer session times to enable teams to react better rather than sitting helpless in the garage as the clock ticks down, and reverting to the old style Q3.
The only way I see this working is that teams will have to be given an extra set of Q3 qualifying tyre or else, I can see teams who used up two sets to get to Q3 will only do one run, like Ferrari did last race. I really hope they will think it through before foisting another muddled set of rules on us.
This goes back to the governance problem that F1 faces and the constant power struggle between the constructors/teams and the FIA or Bernie. Jon Noble in one of his articles questioned why these trials were not done in the remaining races after the championship was done and dusted last year. I think it's a valid point. However, I think these changes are being trialled now simply as a knee-jerk reaction to reduce perceived Mercedes dominance by Bernie. No thought behind it. It makes Bernie/FIA and the whole F1 governance structure, stupid and a laughing stock.
Watched the Australian GP.
Second half of the race was boring--fell asleep. I woke up to see some mid field racing between Sainz and Verstappen that was interesting for a few moments.
I would suggest that F1 go to a revenue sharing arrangement similar to the NFL. This would give the teams with limited resources (Force India, Manor, Sauber etc.) the opportunity greater access to $$$ so that they have a fighting chance of actually competing. How many races in the last 7 years have been won by a team a team other than Ferrari, Red Bull or Mercedes?
Second half of the race was boring--fell asleep. I woke up to see some mid field racing between Sainz and Verstappen that was interesting for a few moments.
I would suggest that F1 go to a revenue sharing arrangement similar to the NFL. This would give the teams with limited resources (Force India, Manor, Sauber etc.) the opportunity greater access to $$$ so that they have a fighting chance of actually competing. How many races in the last 7 years have been won by a team a team other than Ferrari, Red Bull or Mercedes?
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-forced-to-kee...
So, they couldn't fix the problem nor even address it. Cynic in me suggests that this is a political move by the Bernie/Todt alliance to wrestle back control from the constructors/manufacturers.
So, they couldn't fix the problem nor even address it. Cynic in me suggests that this is a political move by the Bernie/Todt alliance to wrestle back control from the constructors/manufacturers.
jpf said:
Watched the Australian GP.
Second half of the race was boring--fell asleep. I woke up to see some mid field racing between Sainz and Verstappen that was interesting for a few moments.
I would suggest that F1 go to a revenue sharing arrangement similar to the NFL. This would give the teams with limited resources (Force India, Manor, Sauber etc.) the opportunity greater access to $$$ so that they have a fighting chance of actually competing. How many races in the last 7 years have been won by a team a team other than Ferrari, Red Bull or Mercedes?
But F1's been boring for literally YEARS. For example during the entire decade of the 1990s (first race of '90 to last race of '99) four teams (McLaren, Williams, Ferrari, Benetton) between them won all but 6 of the races. And those 6 were won by only 3 other teams (Jordan, Stewart, Ligier). F1 has never been as open as we would like it to be, a small number of teams have always dominated, and probably always will.Second half of the race was boring--fell asleep. I woke up to see some mid field racing between Sainz and Verstappen that was interesting for a few moments.
I would suggest that F1 go to a revenue sharing arrangement similar to the NFL. This would give the teams with limited resources (Force India, Manor, Sauber etc.) the opportunity greater access to $$$ so that they have a fighting chance of actually competing. How many races in the last 7 years have been won by a team a team other than Ferrari, Red Bull or Mercedes?
What some need to grasp is that F1 is not about just entertaining racing - you can get that from any number of sources from BTCC up - but something far more complex and addictive.
The first thing it needs to be is not a stand alone sport but the pinnacle of the sport ; I am shocked how many fans equate motor sport with F1 alone and how few are aware about the rest. So I would push for European championships at F2/GP2 and F3 level which are run separately(and accessibly to the normal fan) and not as a support act to Grands Prix. Why Europe ? Simple- we make the cars , produce most of the drivers and constitute most of the TV audience.
Second- F1 cars need to be very fast , very loud and very hard to drive at the limit.I want to see and hear cars which ,in Pete Lyons' words, 'make me take a step back from the fencing when they go past'. I want driver skills to focus on the mechanics of driving - steering and changing gear etc and not multi tasking on an iphone disguised as a racing car.
Third- overtaking - hard but possible and without the need for the oxymoronic 'overtaking in the pits '.
Fourth- tyres - I don't care what brand they are and I care even less about their compound . Their role is to last a race without falling in bits. Pit stops are to change a puncture .
Fifth no refuelling- pit stops ruin most single seater racing . Fine for sports cars and NASCAR.And Indy 500.
Sixth - 26 car grids - and I care not a damn if major manufacturers are in out. I like to see the red cars as they are a lot of the sport's DNA but the sport should always be bigger than the manufacturers .
Seventh -Affordability ;the current budgets are grotesque.They are unsustainable and fixed budgets may be the only way out - bloody difficult though .
Eighth - and by far the most important. The sport has been pimped around to the highest bidder by a cynically avaracious management for years. They have got obscenely rich and fans have been progressively more ripped off by the shower who run F1 . I am sick of it- most of us are sick of it . Let's change it from a rapacious business masquerading as a sport to a sport run in a business like way.
The first thing it needs to be is not a stand alone sport but the pinnacle of the sport ; I am shocked how many fans equate motor sport with F1 alone and how few are aware about the rest. So I would push for European championships at F2/GP2 and F3 level which are run separately(and accessibly to the normal fan) and not as a support act to Grands Prix. Why Europe ? Simple- we make the cars , produce most of the drivers and constitute most of the TV audience.
Second- F1 cars need to be very fast , very loud and very hard to drive at the limit.I want to see and hear cars which ,in Pete Lyons' words, 'make me take a step back from the fencing when they go past'. I want driver skills to focus on the mechanics of driving - steering and changing gear etc and not multi tasking on an iphone disguised as a racing car.
Third- overtaking - hard but possible and without the need for the oxymoronic 'overtaking in the pits '.
Fourth- tyres - I don't care what brand they are and I care even less about their compound . Their role is to last a race without falling in bits. Pit stops are to change a puncture .
Fifth no refuelling- pit stops ruin most single seater racing . Fine for sports cars and NASCAR.And Indy 500.
Sixth - 26 car grids - and I care not a damn if major manufacturers are in out. I like to see the red cars as they are a lot of the sport's DNA but the sport should always be bigger than the manufacturers .
Seventh -Affordability ;the current budgets are grotesque.They are unsustainable and fixed budgets may be the only way out - bloody difficult though .
Eighth - and by far the most important. The sport has been pimped around to the highest bidder by a cynically avaracious management for years. They have got obscenely rich and fans have been progressively more ripped off by the shower who run F1 . I am sick of it- most of us are sick of it . Let's change it from a rapacious business masquerading as a sport to a sport run in a business like way.
Dr Z said:
Tootles, interesting to hear a fan's view from the Murray Walker era as you put it. Where to start! I don't think many of your ideas will work in today's climate. The world has moved on, I'm afraid.
.
I think you're probably right. F1 and the world have moved on, perhaps I'd like to stop and smell the high octane petrol again without having to listen to soundbite drivers and having every aspect of the TV coverage hyped-up to within an inch of its life. There are only so many super slow-motion montages of cars bumping over kerbs interspersed with drivers walking purposefully (also in slow-mo) to the sound of a Dubstep soundtrack that a sane man can take..
Its the Skyification of things, making everything "awesome" and "can't be missed" when really it could be missed. What next, pay per view to see the drivers take a pre-race dump? You could call it bogcam with different camera angles available on the Red Button and have two TV "personalities" who know nothing about F1 but a lot about crap get themselves overexcited about what's "...coming up next!", or should I say going down next?
Nurse! The screens!
Kawasicki said:
Evangelion said:
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.
Yes.Downforce is at the root of all F1's problems AFAIC. When it goes, my interest will return.
We mustn't mention that though.
Ok?
So how are you going to get rid of downforce then?
REALIST123 said:
Kawasicki said:
Evangelion said:
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.
Yes.Downforce is at the root of all F1's problems AFAIC. When it goes, my interest will return.
We mustn't mention that though.
Ok?
So how are you going to get rid of downforce then?
Wind tunnel. If your car generates downforce, you can't race. Easy.
Kawasicki said:
REALIST123 said:
Kawasicki said:
Evangelion said:
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.
Yes.Downforce is at the root of all F1's problems AFAIC. When it goes, my interest will return.
We mustn't mention that though.
Ok?
So how are you going to get rid of downforce then?
Wind tunnel. If your car generates downforce, you can't race. Easy.
Coppice, that's probably the most somebody has put an effort to come up with some ideas to make the spectacle better, in this thread. Let's see if it is coherent and actually viable.
2) Define fast. And define 'hard to drive at the limit'. I don't know if you realise, they are both related (if I get where you're coming from). A very hard car to drive at the limit will also be a very slow car. Then you get people complaining that their grandma can drive faster or that F1 isn't a pinnacle of motorsport anymore, as the lower categories are faster. Of course, a hard car to drive at the limit would be good to demonstrate driver skill at the limit. But a car that is easier to drive at the limit will be naturally faster. Teams will always look to make their car do the latter, and not the former. Loudness is subjective, and I prefer musicality to brutality in the loudness scale. So, agree to disagree.
3) OK, no overtaking via strategy--how you achieve it is elaborated in the fourth/fifth points, so let's go there:
4) Right, you want tyres that last a whole race. I assume you'd also require these hypothetical tyres to take all manner of abuse without giving up the ghost, allowing the drivers to push to the car's max potential. By giving teams tyres like this, you invariably diminish driver influence on the race result. Let me explain. Suppose there are two front running teams, say Ferrari and Mercedes whose cars are 0.2s/lap apart in ultimate performance, with Mercedes faster than Ferrari. At the start of the race both Ferrari and Mercedes are pushing to their limit and by 10 laps we will have a Mercedes 1-2 with a gap of 2 seconds to a Ferrari 3-4. The only fight you are likely to have is between team mates, and you are much less likely to see that. In this hypothetical race you will have a nicely ordered procession according to the performance of the cars.
Driver influence has less of an effect on car performance after a certain threshold. You certainly see that in the current formula at the front. All top drivers can drive to within a tenth of each other. If you make the cars harder to drive on the limit, you also make them slower, but increase the effect of driver influence. But teams will always try to minimise driver influence to get a nicely managed 1-2 for the constructor's championship.
5) In total agreement there, but for different reasons which I have outlined in previous posts in this thread.
6&7) I guess these two points are related. Would you welcome manufacturers to the sport, and if you do, you have a massive issue of policing their budgets. If the big guns are banned from the sport, you would still get whoever can spend the most, end up being at the front. This imbalance is impossible to correct. I appreciate that the top spenders don't necessarily win, but asking teams like McLaren or Williams to stick to an arbitrary budget that panders to the lowest common denominator will be very difficult to do, and they'll simply leave or find ways around it. This includes our beloved Ferrari, btw.
8) Agree.
coppice said:
What some need to grasp is that F1 is not about just entertaining racing - you can get that from any number of sources from BTCC up - but something far more complex and addictive.
The first thing it needs to be is not a stand alone sport but the pinnacle of the sport ; I am shocked how many fans equate motor sport with F1 alone and how few are aware about the rest. So I would push for European championships at F2/GP2 and F3 level which are run separately(and accessibly to the normal fan) and not as a support act to Grands Prix. Why Europe ? Simple- we make the cars , produce most of the drivers and constitute most of the TV audience.
Second- F1 cars need to be very fast , very loud and very hard to drive at the limit.I want to see and hear cars which ,in Pete Lyons' words, 'make me take a step back from the fencing when they go past'. I want driver skills to focus on the mechanics of driving - steering and changing gear etc and not multi tasking on an iphone disguised as a racing car.
Third- overtaking - hard but possible and without the need for the oxymoronic 'overtaking in the pits '.
Fourth- tyres - I don't care what brand they are and I care even less about their compound . Their role is to last a race without falling in bits. Pit stops are to change a puncture .
Fifth no refuelling- pit stops ruin most single seater racing . Fine for sports cars and NASCAR.And Indy 500.
Sixth - 26 car grids - and I care not a damn if major manufacturers are in out. I like to see the red cars as they are a lot of the sport's DNA but the sport should always be bigger than the manufacturers .
Seventh -Affordability ;the current budgets are grotesque.They are unsustainable and fixed budgets may be the only way out - bloody difficult though .
Eighth - and by far the most important. The sport has been pimped around to the highest bidder by a cynically avaracious management for years. They have got obscenely rich and fans have been progressively more ripped off by the shower who run F1 . I am sick of it- most of us are sick of it . Let's change it from a rapacious business masquerading as a sport to a sport run in a business like way.
1) I think it will be nice to go to an F3 or GP2 meet, separate from a F1 weekend. Easy enough to do, I guess. Done.The first thing it needs to be is not a stand alone sport but the pinnacle of the sport ; I am shocked how many fans equate motor sport with F1 alone and how few are aware about the rest. So I would push for European championships at F2/GP2 and F3 level which are run separately(and accessibly to the normal fan) and not as a support act to Grands Prix. Why Europe ? Simple- we make the cars , produce most of the drivers and constitute most of the TV audience.
Second- F1 cars need to be very fast , very loud and very hard to drive at the limit.I want to see and hear cars which ,in Pete Lyons' words, 'make me take a step back from the fencing when they go past'. I want driver skills to focus on the mechanics of driving - steering and changing gear etc and not multi tasking on an iphone disguised as a racing car.
Third- overtaking - hard but possible and without the need for the oxymoronic 'overtaking in the pits '.
Fourth- tyres - I don't care what brand they are and I care even less about their compound . Their role is to last a race without falling in bits. Pit stops are to change a puncture .
Fifth no refuelling- pit stops ruin most single seater racing . Fine for sports cars and NASCAR.And Indy 500.
Sixth - 26 car grids - and I care not a damn if major manufacturers are in out. I like to see the red cars as they are a lot of the sport's DNA but the sport should always be bigger than the manufacturers .
Seventh -Affordability ;the current budgets are grotesque.They are unsustainable and fixed budgets may be the only way out - bloody difficult though .
Eighth - and by far the most important. The sport has been pimped around to the highest bidder by a cynically avaracious management for years. They have got obscenely rich and fans have been progressively more ripped off by the shower who run F1 . I am sick of it- most of us are sick of it . Let's change it from a rapacious business masquerading as a sport to a sport run in a business like way.
2) Define fast. And define 'hard to drive at the limit'. I don't know if you realise, they are both related (if I get where you're coming from). A very hard car to drive at the limit will also be a very slow car. Then you get people complaining that their grandma can drive faster or that F1 isn't a pinnacle of motorsport anymore, as the lower categories are faster. Of course, a hard car to drive at the limit would be good to demonstrate driver skill at the limit. But a car that is easier to drive at the limit will be naturally faster. Teams will always look to make their car do the latter, and not the former. Loudness is subjective, and I prefer musicality to brutality in the loudness scale. So, agree to disagree.
3) OK, no overtaking via strategy--how you achieve it is elaborated in the fourth/fifth points, so let's go there:
4) Right, you want tyres that last a whole race. I assume you'd also require these hypothetical tyres to take all manner of abuse without giving up the ghost, allowing the drivers to push to the car's max potential. By giving teams tyres like this, you invariably diminish driver influence on the race result. Let me explain. Suppose there are two front running teams, say Ferrari and Mercedes whose cars are 0.2s/lap apart in ultimate performance, with Mercedes faster than Ferrari. At the start of the race both Ferrari and Mercedes are pushing to their limit and by 10 laps we will have a Mercedes 1-2 with a gap of 2 seconds to a Ferrari 3-4. The only fight you are likely to have is between team mates, and you are much less likely to see that. In this hypothetical race you will have a nicely ordered procession according to the performance of the cars.
Driver influence has less of an effect on car performance after a certain threshold. You certainly see that in the current formula at the front. All top drivers can drive to within a tenth of each other. If you make the cars harder to drive on the limit, you also make them slower, but increase the effect of driver influence. But teams will always try to minimise driver influence to get a nicely managed 1-2 for the constructor's championship.
5) In total agreement there, but for different reasons which I have outlined in previous posts in this thread.
6&7) I guess these two points are related. Would you welcome manufacturers to the sport, and if you do, you have a massive issue of policing their budgets. If the big guns are banned from the sport, you would still get whoever can spend the most, end up being at the front. This imbalance is impossible to correct. I appreciate that the top spenders don't necessarily win, but asking teams like McLaren or Williams to stick to an arbitrary budget that panders to the lowest common denominator will be very difficult to do, and they'll simply leave or find ways around it. This includes our beloved Ferrari, btw.
8) Agree.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff