Basic problems/solutions with Formula 1. Opinion not Fact.
Discussion
Curious what other people think, but today I noticed many problems with a sport I've followed for 40 years.
I was struck today by just how contradictory F1 has become.
For example:
1-Safety.
On 'Safety' grounds, the most exciting part of the race, the traditional standing start, was deemed not something that was safe enough to tackle today. Instead, we had the tedious spectacle of the 'safety car' leading the field around for several laps at road car pace.
However, once the 'safety car' pitted, it was deemed 'safe' to then allow the race to actually commence (at full racing speeds) with cars full of fuel, on cold tyres and with cold brakes, and still having to adapt to a wet track at full speed. The cars still aquaplaned. Crazy.
We are talking about the world's best drivers, at the pinnacle of global motorsport here. Let them sort out how to start the race and 'adapt' to the conditions. Let them race! The race-the very thing people are paying to watch...
2-Team Radio.
If teams/the FIA insist on using radio, then don't broadcast it to the public. Keep it 'in house' and let the FIA listen or whatever is deemed 'safe'.
Team to driver radio is not exciting, it just sounds like air traffic control, not Formula 1.
Let the driver (Rosberg) work out (given his car is/was stuck in 7th gear and already a 'safety' issue if you like) how to get over the problem, or retire the car. He has a brain, let him use it. Or rely only on a pit board, which is still used to this day. Keep it simple!
3-Technology.
I dont want to, nor should I need to, understand about moving wings/flaps, braking performance being enhanced/compromised by battery performance, tyre construction, engine modes, diff settings, mapping, fuel flow etc etc to 'enjoy' the sport.
Keep it simple! It is man and machine, a 'sport'. It is not The Gadget Show. If 'technology' is king, why is there a human waving the chequered flag at the end of the race?
4-Formula 1 Marketing and Road Cars.
I've never seen a production Renault, Honda, Toyota or Mercedes road car with a V10, but these engines were the 'norm' for many years in Formula 1. Sounded brilliant too.
The manufacturers who made/badged these engines did this for marketing, and it worked well for them.
Mercedes (for example) used the prestige of winning a race or title with a V10-engined Formula 1 car to sell a 2.0 turbo diesel from the showroom.
Does Mercedes now sell a road car because of the 'hybrid' technology used in Formula 1? No.
Or is it because Mercedes wins/is the best? Yes.
So why is the 'sport' using 1600cc engines, which sound broken, which often consume too much fuel, because of the 'road car' industry?
I've still not seen a Red Bull road car (only the prototype) or a Manor, Sauber, Force India, Toro Rosso or Williams on the road. These cars do not even exist.
So why not just produce V10's or V12's again, badge them as Honda, Mercedes etc etc (as we've seen since the 1950's/1960's) and get some sound, soul and a missing key ingredient back again?
Currently it is like going to an airshow which only allows gliders to participate.
Let manufacturers go back to funding/building decent engines, as that is what people want to hear. It is 'sport' with a soul, not a white goods exhibition.
5-Tyres.
Pirelli are 'in' Formula 1 for marketing.
It is not to benefit the road car industry, unless people are crying out for tyres that explode without warning, or wear out after 5 laps, or over-heat, get too cold, don't work because the driver is going too fast, too slow, or a combination of all these 'attributes'.
That is clever marketing.
So next time I want tyres for my road car, I'll just let them wear out and explode.
6-TV Cameras.
At turn 1 today, there was an errant cameraman who 'panned' his camera in time with the cars as they passed. He was positioned on the inside of the corner. His handy work was only broadcast on a couple of occasions though, which was a shame, as it was brilliant at showing just how fast the cars travel at.
Using cameras that zoom in (or I should say zoom out) has the opposite effect, which is filming a car travelling at 200mph, which remains a constant size on the screen as it tracks/zooms out.
This dilutes the impression of massive speed.
The answer is there. Use more close panning, especially with a fixed, wide-angle lens. Use some imagination. Get new people involved. Tear up the 'this is the way we've always done it' book.
7-Testing (lack of).
Yes, I know there is a test this week, but why can't the sport go back to in-season testing on a regular basis? That means more interest, more spectators, more marketing, more jobs etc etc.
I'd rather have more testing instead of a bigger paddock 'facility/empire' that I'm never able to see, or a wind tunnel that again I'm never going to see. I'm not interested in a 50 metre high marketing centre, nor am I interested in wind tunnels.
What I'd like to see in Formula 1 is Formula 1 cars, driven by Formula 1 drivers, that drive around Formula 1 circuits. I can take 'new' fans with me, meaning the 'sport' can grow by attracting more fans, who in turn attract more fans. The 'sport' and industry can grow. Basic stuff.
Regular testing is the answer.
Reversion, not Evolution!
Be interesting to hear what people think and what ideas they have.
I was struck today by just how contradictory F1 has become.
For example:
1-Safety.
On 'Safety' grounds, the most exciting part of the race, the traditional standing start, was deemed not something that was safe enough to tackle today. Instead, we had the tedious spectacle of the 'safety car' leading the field around for several laps at road car pace.
However, once the 'safety car' pitted, it was deemed 'safe' to then allow the race to actually commence (at full racing speeds) with cars full of fuel, on cold tyres and with cold brakes, and still having to adapt to a wet track at full speed. The cars still aquaplaned. Crazy.
We are talking about the world's best drivers, at the pinnacle of global motorsport here. Let them sort out how to start the race and 'adapt' to the conditions. Let them race! The race-the very thing people are paying to watch...
2-Team Radio.
If teams/the FIA insist on using radio, then don't broadcast it to the public. Keep it 'in house' and let the FIA listen or whatever is deemed 'safe'.
Team to driver radio is not exciting, it just sounds like air traffic control, not Formula 1.
Let the driver (Rosberg) work out (given his car is/was stuck in 7th gear and already a 'safety' issue if you like) how to get over the problem, or retire the car. He has a brain, let him use it. Or rely only on a pit board, which is still used to this day. Keep it simple!
3-Technology.
I dont want to, nor should I need to, understand about moving wings/flaps, braking performance being enhanced/compromised by battery performance, tyre construction, engine modes, diff settings, mapping, fuel flow etc etc to 'enjoy' the sport.
Keep it simple! It is man and machine, a 'sport'. It is not The Gadget Show. If 'technology' is king, why is there a human waving the chequered flag at the end of the race?
4-Formula 1 Marketing and Road Cars.
I've never seen a production Renault, Honda, Toyota or Mercedes road car with a V10, but these engines were the 'norm' for many years in Formula 1. Sounded brilliant too.
The manufacturers who made/badged these engines did this for marketing, and it worked well for them.
Mercedes (for example) used the prestige of winning a race or title with a V10-engined Formula 1 car to sell a 2.0 turbo diesel from the showroom.
Does Mercedes now sell a road car because of the 'hybrid' technology used in Formula 1? No.
Or is it because Mercedes wins/is the best? Yes.
So why is the 'sport' using 1600cc engines, which sound broken, which often consume too much fuel, because of the 'road car' industry?
I've still not seen a Red Bull road car (only the prototype) or a Manor, Sauber, Force India, Toro Rosso or Williams on the road. These cars do not even exist.
So why not just produce V10's or V12's again, badge them as Honda, Mercedes etc etc (as we've seen since the 1950's/1960's) and get some sound, soul and a missing key ingredient back again?
Currently it is like going to an airshow which only allows gliders to participate.
Let manufacturers go back to funding/building decent engines, as that is what people want to hear. It is 'sport' with a soul, not a white goods exhibition.
5-Tyres.
Pirelli are 'in' Formula 1 for marketing.
It is not to benefit the road car industry, unless people are crying out for tyres that explode without warning, or wear out after 5 laps, or over-heat, get too cold, don't work because the driver is going too fast, too slow, or a combination of all these 'attributes'.
That is clever marketing.
So next time I want tyres for my road car, I'll just let them wear out and explode.
6-TV Cameras.
At turn 1 today, there was an errant cameraman who 'panned' his camera in time with the cars as they passed. He was positioned on the inside of the corner. His handy work was only broadcast on a couple of occasions though, which was a shame, as it was brilliant at showing just how fast the cars travel at.
Using cameras that zoom in (or I should say zoom out) has the opposite effect, which is filming a car travelling at 200mph, which remains a constant size on the screen as it tracks/zooms out.
This dilutes the impression of massive speed.
The answer is there. Use more close panning, especially with a fixed, wide-angle lens. Use some imagination. Get new people involved. Tear up the 'this is the way we've always done it' book.
7-Testing (lack of).
Yes, I know there is a test this week, but why can't the sport go back to in-season testing on a regular basis? That means more interest, more spectators, more marketing, more jobs etc etc.
I'd rather have more testing instead of a bigger paddock 'facility/empire' that I'm never able to see, or a wind tunnel that again I'm never going to see. I'm not interested in a 50 metre high marketing centre, nor am I interested in wind tunnels.
What I'd like to see in Formula 1 is Formula 1 cars, driven by Formula 1 drivers, that drive around Formula 1 circuits. I can take 'new' fans with me, meaning the 'sport' can grow by attracting more fans, who in turn attract more fans. The 'sport' and industry can grow. Basic stuff.
Regular testing is the answer.
Reversion, not Evolution!
Be interesting to hear what people think and what ideas they have.
Just a quick comment regarding the engines. Yes, Merc do sell hybrid cars based on the F1 developments, so do McLaren, Honda, Ferrari etc.
For me the basic problem is simple, too much aerodynamic downforce. Reduce this a lot, make it simpler and then let the drivers actually drive the car. All this downforce means it is difficult to get close enough to overtake.
For me the basic problem is simple, too much aerodynamic downforce. Reduce this a lot, make it simpler and then let the drivers actually drive the car. All this downforce means it is difficult to get close enough to overtake.
"So why is the 'sport' using 1600cc engines, which sound broken, which often consume too much fuel, because of the 'road car' industry?"
On your point of fuel efficiency. They don't. They are staggeringly efficient for the power, but the FIA have done a rubbish job of selling this fact. The current Merc engine is ~45/48% efficient, about 10% better than the old v8s, which is a remarkable gain over 5 years.
Hybrid is the future - look at the performance of current hyper cars and tell me hybrid makes less sense than displacement?
Agree about the sound though.
On your point of fuel efficiency. They don't. They are staggeringly efficient for the power, but the FIA have done a rubbish job of selling this fact. The current Merc engine is ~45/48% efficient, about 10% better than the old v8s, which is a remarkable gain over 5 years.
Hybrid is the future - look at the performance of current hyper cars and tell me hybrid makes less sense than displacement?
Agree about the sound though.
Interesting points, my replies.....
Ie. you could purchase a development token with say 20 world manufacturers championship points or so. To help the struggling teams such a s McHonda or Renault at present these could be accrued as a negative score letting them forfeit their current championship position to allow them to catch up. It would need to be a high enough amount of points to dissuade people like Mercedes from extending their huge lead mind you.
I'd do the same for unsafe releases, gearbox changes, engine penalties etc etc. Fine the team their points not the drivers.
Personally, I feel like the vast majority of F1 fans' priority is the drivers championship. The Teams are obviously more interested in the Manufacturers Title. You can argue about which is more important (let's be honest, Mercedes employs a lot more people than Lewis or Nico) but for "the show" I feel like it would create an incredibly interesting dynamic should the teams be penalised for their mistakes rather than the drivers.
Apart from that, I think the main failing is a lack of interaction between the drivers and the viewing public. A much larger fan-zone with up close exposure to the drivers and key team personnel should be happening whenever they aren't on track Friday through to Sunday. Yes, I know they're doing de-brief after de-brief, learning lines on simulators etc but if they spend less time looking at how they can pull another 200rpm through "turn 9" and a little more engaging their supporters would that be a bad thing?
I know it's not the done thing on PH to admit to liking social media but FOM should really be selling an app with added content that all the drivers should be interacting with. You select your driver/team on the app and you get exclusive interviews, access to strategy meetings, on board videos, live webcams in the garages, podcasts featuring engineers from different teams, the list is endless. The current timing app could then be an extension of this that gives us techies a lot more detailed info.
I hate to say it, but F1 already caters for us older generations with our outdated methods of following the sport. The next generation of viewers however, will want things vastly different when they've grown up listening to some spotty oik in south carolina on youtube detail every move he's made on minecraft.
BlimeyCharlie said:
Curious what other people think, but today I noticed many problems with a sport I've followed for 40 years.
I was struck today by just how contradictory F1 has become.
For example:
1-Safety.
On 'Safety' grounds, the most exciting part of the race, the traditional standing start, was deemed not something that was safe enough to tackle today. Instead, we had the tedious spectacle of the 'safety car' leading the field around for several laps at road car pace.
However, once the 'safety car' pitted, it was deemed 'safe' to then allow the race to actually commence (at full racing speeds) with cars full of fuel, on cold tyres and with cold brakes, and still having to adapt to a wet track at full speed. The cars still aquaplaned. Crazy.
We are talking about the world's best drivers, at the pinnacle of global motorsport here. Let them sort out how to start the race and 'adapt' to the conditions. Let them race! The race-the very thing people are paying to watch...
I get your point, but you mention aquaplaning. It is impossible for a driver to judge when it can happen, would you expect every driver to drive around at 100mph in case he hit water deep enough? We both know that wouldn't happen so what you'd have left with is any number of cars aquaplaning off the road within the first 4 or 5 laps, what does that bring to the show? It simply introduces a lottery for retiring.I was struck today by just how contradictory F1 has become.
For example:
1-Safety.
On 'Safety' grounds, the most exciting part of the race, the traditional standing start, was deemed not something that was safe enough to tackle today. Instead, we had the tedious spectacle of the 'safety car' leading the field around for several laps at road car pace.
However, once the 'safety car' pitted, it was deemed 'safe' to then allow the race to actually commence (at full racing speeds) with cars full of fuel, on cold tyres and with cold brakes, and still having to adapt to a wet track at full speed. The cars still aquaplaned. Crazy.
We are talking about the world's best drivers, at the pinnacle of global motorsport here. Let them sort out how to start the race and 'adapt' to the conditions. Let them race! The race-the very thing people are paying to watch...
BlimeyCharlie said:
-Team Radio.
If teams/the FIA insist on using radio, then don't broadcast it to the public. Keep it 'in house' and let the FIA listen or whatever is deemed 'safe'.
Team to driver radio is not exciting, it just sounds like air traffic control, not Formula 1.
Let the driver (Rosberg) work out (given his car is/was stuck in 7th gear and already a 'safety' issue if you like) how to get over the problem, or retire the car. He has a brain, let him use it. Or rely only on a pit board, which is still used to this day. Keep it simple!
Personally I've always found team radio interesting as it gives us an extra dimension into what strategies they're going for. Plus it gives the commentators something else to talk about.If teams/the FIA insist on using radio, then don't broadcast it to the public. Keep it 'in house' and let the FIA listen or whatever is deemed 'safe'.
Team to driver radio is not exciting, it just sounds like air traffic control, not Formula 1.
Let the driver (Rosberg) work out (given his car is/was stuck in 7th gear and already a 'safety' issue if you like) how to get over the problem, or retire the car. He has a brain, let him use it. Or rely only on a pit board, which is still used to this day. Keep it simple!
BlimeyCharlie said:
-Technology.
I dont want to, nor should I need to, understand about moving wings/flaps, braking performance being enhanced/compromised by battery performance, tyre construction, engine modes, diff settings, mapping, fuel flow etc etc to 'enjoy' the sport.
Keep it simple! It is man and machine, a 'sport'. It is not The Gadget Show. If 'technology' is king, why is there a human waving the chequered flag at the end of the race?
If F1 has ever been like this, it certainly hasn't been since the 1950's. Technology has gone hand in hand with the sport and has generated some fascinating machines.I dont want to, nor should I need to, understand about moving wings/flaps, braking performance being enhanced/compromised by battery performance, tyre construction, engine modes, diff settings, mapping, fuel flow etc etc to 'enjoy' the sport.
Keep it simple! It is man and machine, a 'sport'. It is not The Gadget Show. If 'technology' is king, why is there a human waving the chequered flag at the end of the race?
BlimeyCharlie said:
-Formula 1 Marketing and Road Cars.
I've never seen a production Renault, Honda, Toyota or Mercedes road car with a V10, but these engines were the 'norm' for many years in Formula 1. Sounded brilliant too.
The manufacturers who made/badged these engines did this for marketing, and it worked well for them.
Mercedes (for example) used the prestige of winning a race or title with a V10-engined Formula 1 car to sell a 2.0 turbo diesel from the showroom.
Does Mercedes now sell a road car because of the 'hybrid' technology used in Formula 1? No.
Or is it because Mercedes wins/is the best? Yes.
So why is the 'sport' using 1600cc engines, which sound broken, which often consume too much fuel, because of the 'road car' industry?
I've still not seen a Red Bull road car (only the prototype) or a Manor, Sauber, Force India, Toro Rosso or Williams on the road. These cars do not even exist.
So why not just produce V10's or V12's again, badge them as Honda, Mercedes etc etc (as we've seen since the 1950's/1960's) and get some sound, soul and a missing key ingredient back again?
Currently it is like going to an airshow which only allows gliders to participate.
Let manufacturers go back to funding/building decent engines, as that is what people want to hear. It is 'sport' with a soul, not a white goods exhibition.
As above, I'd disagree totally with this. It's still hugely about marketing for the manufacturers. Your V10 argument falls down as Toyota (Lexus) made a V10, as did BMW whist they were competingI've never seen a production Renault, Honda, Toyota or Mercedes road car with a V10, but these engines were the 'norm' for many years in Formula 1. Sounded brilliant too.
The manufacturers who made/badged these engines did this for marketing, and it worked well for them.
Mercedes (for example) used the prestige of winning a race or title with a V10-engined Formula 1 car to sell a 2.0 turbo diesel from the showroom.
Does Mercedes now sell a road car because of the 'hybrid' technology used in Formula 1? No.
Or is it because Mercedes wins/is the best? Yes.
So why is the 'sport' using 1600cc engines, which sound broken, which often consume too much fuel, because of the 'road car' industry?
I've still not seen a Red Bull road car (only the prototype) or a Manor, Sauber, Force India, Toro Rosso or Williams on the road. These cars do not even exist.
So why not just produce V10's or V12's again, badge them as Honda, Mercedes etc etc (as we've seen since the 1950's/1960's) and get some sound, soul and a missing key ingredient back again?
Currently it is like going to an airshow which only allows gliders to participate.
Let manufacturers go back to funding/building decent engines, as that is what people want to hear. It is 'sport' with a soul, not a white goods exhibition.
BlimeyCharlie said:
-Tyres.
Pirelli are 'in' Formula 1 for marketing.
It is not to benefit the road car industry, unless people are crying out for tyres that explode without warning, or wear out after 5 laps, or over-heat, get too cold, don't work because the driver is going too fast, too slow, or a combination of all these 'attributes'.
That is clever marketing.
So next time I want tyres for my road car, I'll just let them wear out and explode.
Pirelli are 'in' Formula 1 for marketing.
It is not to benefit the road car industry, unless people are crying out for tyres that explode without warning, or wear out after 5 laps, or over-heat, get too cold, don't work because the driver is going too fast, too slow, or a combination of all these 'attributes'.
That is clever marketing.
So next time I want tyres for my road car, I'll just let them wear out and explode.
BlimeyCharlie said:
-TV Cameras.
At turn 1 today, there was an errant cameraman who 'panned' his camera in time with the cars as they passed. He was positioned on the inside of the corner. His handy work was only broadcast on a couple of occasions though, which was a shame, as it was brilliant at showing just how fast the cars travel at.
Using cameras that zoom in (or I should say zoom out) has the opposite effect, which is filming a car travelling at 200mph, which remains a constant size on the screen as it tracks/zooms out.
This dilutes the impression of massive speed.
The answer is there. Use more close panning, especially with a fixed, wide-angle lens. Use some imagination. Get new people involved. Tear up the 'this is the way we've always done it' book.
Agree, though I must say the new on board angle is really good (if low res) and if we get the halo and they mount it in that you'll get as close to a drivers eye view without a helmet-cam.At turn 1 today, there was an errant cameraman who 'panned' his camera in time with the cars as they passed. He was positioned on the inside of the corner. His handy work was only broadcast on a couple of occasions though, which was a shame, as it was brilliant at showing just how fast the cars travel at.
Using cameras that zoom in (or I should say zoom out) has the opposite effect, which is filming a car travelling at 200mph, which remains a constant size on the screen as it tracks/zooms out.
This dilutes the impression of massive speed.
The answer is there. Use more close panning, especially with a fixed, wide-angle lens. Use some imagination. Get new people involved. Tear up the 'this is the way we've always done it' book.
BlimeyCharlie said:
-Testing (lack of).
Yes, I know there is a test this week, but why can't the sport go back to in-season testing on a regular basis? That means more interest, more spectators, more marketing, more jobs etc etc.
I'd rather have more testing instead of a bigger paddock 'facility/empire' that I'm never able to see, or a wind tunnel that again I'm never going to see. I'm not interested in a 50 metre high marketing centre, nor am I interested in wind tunnels.
What I'd like to see in Formula 1 is Formula 1 cars, driven by Formula 1 drivers, that drive around Formula 1 circuits. I can take 'new' fans with me, meaning the 'sport' can grow by attracting more fans, who in turn attract more fans. The 'sport' and industry can grow. Basic stuff.
Regular testing is the answer.
I would agree, but I fear it's a little more complicated than that. Testing will cost huge amounts of money and it will simply let the richest teams throw more money at it and widen the performance gap. Plus, where do you hold it? Presumably as most teams are based here then the UK would be cheapest but that would put the foreign teams at a huge cost disadvantage. If you "tour" it around, who pays the massive costs?Yes, I know there is a test this week, but why can't the sport go back to in-season testing on a regular basis? That means more interest, more spectators, more marketing, more jobs etc etc.
I'd rather have more testing instead of a bigger paddock 'facility/empire' that I'm never able to see, or a wind tunnel that again I'm never going to see. I'm not interested in a 50 metre high marketing centre, nor am I interested in wind tunnels.
What I'd like to see in Formula 1 is Formula 1 cars, driven by Formula 1 drivers, that drive around Formula 1 circuits. I can take 'new' fans with me, meaning the 'sport' can grow by attracting more fans, who in turn attract more fans. The 'sport' and industry can grow. Basic stuff.
Regular testing is the answer.
BlimeyCharlie said:
, not Evolution!
Be interesting to hear what people think and what ideas they have.
I think the development tokens are an interesting concept, though I personally feel their application needs some more thought. I've often thought they should be purchased by championship points. Be interesting to hear what people think and what ideas they have.
Ie. you could purchase a development token with say 20 world manufacturers championship points or so. To help the struggling teams such a s McHonda or Renault at present these could be accrued as a negative score letting them forfeit their current championship position to allow them to catch up. It would need to be a high enough amount of points to dissuade people like Mercedes from extending their huge lead mind you.
I'd do the same for unsafe releases, gearbox changes, engine penalties etc etc. Fine the team their points not the drivers.
Personally, I feel like the vast majority of F1 fans' priority is the drivers championship. The Teams are obviously more interested in the Manufacturers Title. You can argue about which is more important (let's be honest, Mercedes employs a lot more people than Lewis or Nico) but for "the show" I feel like it would create an incredibly interesting dynamic should the teams be penalised for their mistakes rather than the drivers.
Apart from that, I think the main failing is a lack of interaction between the drivers and the viewing public. A much larger fan-zone with up close exposure to the drivers and key team personnel should be happening whenever they aren't on track Friday through to Sunday. Yes, I know they're doing de-brief after de-brief, learning lines on simulators etc but if they spend less time looking at how they can pull another 200rpm through "turn 9" and a little more engaging their supporters would that be a bad thing?
I know it's not the done thing on PH to admit to liking social media but FOM should really be selling an app with added content that all the drivers should be interacting with. You select your driver/team on the app and you get exclusive interviews, access to strategy meetings, on board videos, live webcams in the garages, podcasts featuring engineers from different teams, the list is endless. The current timing app could then be an extension of this that gives us techies a lot more detailed info.
I hate to say it, but F1 already caters for us older generations with our outdated methods of following the sport. The next generation of viewers however, will want things vastly different when they've grown up listening to some spotty oik in south carolina on youtube detail every move he's made on minecraft.
Edited by LaurasOtherHalf on Monday 11th July 23:07
Interesting stuff, and thanks for the replies.
I guess the question asked about where do teams test, as most are based here in the UK, is a good one, but the answer is to go 'back' to testing at circuits that offer/provide different challenges for car set-up, such as Monza and Silverstone. The teams like Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull etc are not worrying about transport costs within mainland Europe, are they? Look instead to what they would gain. Young drivers, innovation with aero, chassis and engines. The big winner would of course be 'the fans', the sport, the circuits and again the teams. They could wine and dine sponsors etc.
Plus I am wrong with regard to V10 engines, the M5 for BMW and Lexus LFA did of course make it into production, though the hidden pedant in me would like to clarify I did not mention Lexus or BMW originally. I had to Google this just to check as well.
Hybrid engines are great for economy and output, but boy are they dull.
Maybe F1 is something that is a casualty of modern life. I'd forgotten about 'Engine Tokens' but what a load of nonsense that is. Reminds me of Milk Tokens.
I guess the question asked about where do teams test, as most are based here in the UK, is a good one, but the answer is to go 'back' to testing at circuits that offer/provide different challenges for car set-up, such as Monza and Silverstone. The teams like Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull etc are not worrying about transport costs within mainland Europe, are they? Look instead to what they would gain. Young drivers, innovation with aero, chassis and engines. The big winner would of course be 'the fans', the sport, the circuits and again the teams. They could wine and dine sponsors etc.
Plus I am wrong with regard to V10 engines, the M5 for BMW and Lexus LFA did of course make it into production, though the hidden pedant in me would like to clarify I did not mention Lexus or BMW originally. I had to Google this just to check as well.
Hybrid engines are great for economy and output, but boy are they dull.
Maybe F1 is something that is a casualty of modern life. I'd forgotten about 'Engine Tokens' but what a load of nonsense that is. Reminds me of Milk Tokens.
BlimeyCharlie said:
Interesting stuff, and thanks for the replies.
I guess the question asked about where do teams test, as most are based here in the UK, is a good one, but the answer is to go 'back' to testing at circuits that offer/provide different challenges for car set-up, such as Monza and Silverstone. The teams like Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull etc are not worrying about transport costs within mainland Europe, are they? Look instead to what they would gain. Young drivers, innovation with aero, chassis and engines. The big winner would of course be 'the fans', the sport, the circuits and again the teams. They could wine and dine sponsors etc.
Plus I am wrong with regard to V10 engines, the M5 for BMW and Lexus LFA did of course make it into production, though the hidden pedant in me would like to clarify I did not mention Lexus or BMW originally. I had to Google this just to check as well.
Hybrid engines are great for economy and output, but boy are they dull.
Maybe F1 is something that is a casualty of modern life. I'd forgotten about 'Engine Tokens' but what a load of nonsense that is. Reminds me of Milk Tokens.
Hybrids are far from dull in my opinion, I bet they are exhilarating to drive due to the torque and I think they sound great*.I guess the question asked about where do teams test, as most are based here in the UK, is a good one, but the answer is to go 'back' to testing at circuits that offer/provide different challenges for car set-up, such as Monza and Silverstone. The teams like Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull etc are not worrying about transport costs within mainland Europe, are they? Look instead to what they would gain. Young drivers, innovation with aero, chassis and engines. The big winner would of course be 'the fans', the sport, the circuits and again the teams. They could wine and dine sponsors etc.
Plus I am wrong with regard to V10 engines, the M5 for BMW and Lexus LFA did of course make it into production, though the hidden pedant in me would like to clarify I did not mention Lexus or BMW originally. I had to Google this just to check as well.
Hybrid engines are great for economy and output, but boy are they dull.
Maybe F1 is something that is a casualty of modern life. I'd forgotten about 'Engine Tokens' but what a load of nonsense that is. Reminds me of Milk Tokens.
In what way does engine tokens remind you of milk tokens, literally just the use of the word token? Other than that there's not really any similarity surely?
- hearing the turbos and tyres is just as good, far more interesting than the screaming engines of yesteryear which got boring very quickly at trackside.
BlimeyCharlie said:
...
Hybrid engines are great for economy and output, but boy are they dull.
Maybe F1 is something that is a casualty of modern life. I'd forgotten about 'Engine Tokens' but what a load of nonsense that is. Reminds me of Milk Tokens.
Dull? The cars are breaking lap records, so it can't be speed that concerns you. Based on your postings you aren't a regular at the trackside, so it can't be noise that concerns you (and if you are that bothered, just play a recording a V12 howling away in the background). Perhaps it is the need for the drivers to handle the torque from the hybrid, with all the interesting snapping oversteer which you find dull? The different engine modes meaning cars are overtaking each other when the driver gets it wrong? The brakes going off leading to duels such as Rosberg and Verstappen in Canada? I really do need a bit of help in understanding what the problem is, other than "dull". Hybrid engines are great for economy and output, but boy are they dull.
Maybe F1 is something that is a casualty of modern life. I'd forgotten about 'Engine Tokens' but what a load of nonsense that is. Reminds me of Milk Tokens.
You do know that there is always this if you prefer the past "just because": http://www.mastershistoricracing.com/historic-form...
First and foremost, I think that the biggest problem is money.
Bernie charges too much to the circuits, they can't make a sensible return even when fans are being fleeced to sit on bleachers in the open.
Stephan Johanson is saying today that the racing is just engineering porn. 1000 engineers to design and maintain 2 cars each year is just plain dumb. Does it make the racing more exciting? NO! As other have said simple aerodynamics with a powerful engine that test the driver's skill is what is required. Needing drivers to be well funded with an engineering degree is not what excites fans.
In the era of Stewart and Hunt, a team might consist of 12 people, plus WAGs, the cars looked and sounded beautiful. The sponsors products were relevant to the fans. It was a virtuous circle.
Now the whole show seems to exist in the bubble of the paddock club. Once it goes behind a paywall it will become as irrelevant to mass audiences as boxing now is.
Bernie charges too much to the circuits, they can't make a sensible return even when fans are being fleeced to sit on bleachers in the open.
Stephan Johanson is saying today that the racing is just engineering porn. 1000 engineers to design and maintain 2 cars each year is just plain dumb. Does it make the racing more exciting? NO! As other have said simple aerodynamics with a powerful engine that test the driver's skill is what is required. Needing drivers to be well funded with an engineering degree is not what excites fans.
In the era of Stewart and Hunt, a team might consist of 12 people, plus WAGs, the cars looked and sounded beautiful. The sponsors products were relevant to the fans. It was a virtuous circle.
Now the whole show seems to exist in the bubble of the paddock club. Once it goes behind a paywall it will become as irrelevant to mass audiences as boxing now is.
BlimeyCharlie said:
Interesting stuff, and thanks for the replies.
I guess the question asked about where do teams test, as most are based here in the UK, is a good one, but the answer is to go 'back' to testing at circuits that offer/provide different challenges for car set-up, such as Monza and Silverstone. The teams like Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull etc are not worrying about transport costs within mainland Europe, are they? Look instead to what they would gain. Young drivers, innovation with aero, chassis and engines. The big winner would of course be 'the fans', the sport, the circuits and again the teams. They could wine and dine sponsors etc.
Plus I am wrong with regard to V10 engines, the M5 for BMW and Lexus LFA did of course make it into production, though the hidden pedant in me would like to clarify I did not mention Lexus or BMW originally. I had to Google this just to check as well.
Hybrid engines are great for economy and output, but boy are they dull.
Maybe F1 is something that is a casualty of modern life. I'd forgotten about 'Engine Tokens' but what a load of nonsense that is. Reminds me of Milk Tokens.
I think that from this, and your original post, it's clear that you don't understand much about Formula 1.I guess the question asked about where do teams test, as most are based here in the UK, is a good one, but the answer is to go 'back' to testing at circuits that offer/provide different challenges for car set-up, such as Monza and Silverstone. The teams like Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull etc are not worrying about transport costs within mainland Europe, are they? Look instead to what they would gain. Young drivers, innovation with aero, chassis and engines. The big winner would of course be 'the fans', the sport, the circuits and again the teams. They could wine and dine sponsors etc.
Plus I am wrong with regard to V10 engines, the M5 for BMW and Lexus LFA did of course make it into production, though the hidden pedant in me would like to clarify I did not mention Lexus or BMW originally. I had to Google this just to check as well.
Hybrid engines are great for economy and output, but boy are they dull.
Maybe F1 is something that is a casualty of modern life. I'd forgotten about 'Engine Tokens' but what a load of nonsense that is. Reminds me of Milk Tokens.
Testing at Monza is irrelevant, because it is unique in its layout, and teams need a "Monza-specific" aero package. Similarly, Silverstone is greatly affected by the prevailing winds, so aero results will be inconsistent.
And, on the subject of tyres, the problem with the Pirellis was that the teams abused them, running pressures lower than Pirelli's recommendations, suspension geometry set outside of Pirelli's guidelines, and they also ran the rear tyres the wrong way round - the tyres are directional, but when run in the opposite direction the sidewall behaves differently, and influences the behaviour of the rear diffuser, because the tyres were more effective at sealing the gap between sidewall and rear floor. Yes, Formula 1 aerodynamics really are that critical. Now, Pirelli dictate pressures and suspension settings (within limits) and the tyres are more stringently monitored. Since Pirelli had more control over the important aspects of tyre use the only failures have been as a result of cuts.
Engine tokens disappear next year. Whether this is a good thing or not remains to be seen. Will it result in an arms race (which will be won by Mercedes) or not? Only Honda are currently without the dual combustion-chamber technology which has improved power outputs and fuel economy. It has been rumoured that Mercedes had this from the beginning of the new engine formula in 2014.
The FIA had to do something to show that they could force the development of more fuel-efficient engines. And, if you want to force the development of engine technology you get the smartest brains on the planet to go racing with it.
On the matter of finance, Formula 1 now exists to make a return for CVC, the Private Equity company to whom Bernie Ecclestone sold the commercial rights once he had persuaded Max Mosley, then Chair of the FIA, to assign them to FOM for 100 years. Everything that happens in Formula 1 is geared to maximising CVC's return on their investment. So far, it's worked out rather well for them.
jonwm said:
Been into F1 most of my life, watch without fail, most years attend the Spanish one, the safety car start made me really angry and I didn't watch the race, first time in a long time if at home I don't watch it live, really was crazy.
Your loss, it was one of the best races of the season.BlimeyCharlie said:
3-Technology.
I dont want to, nor should I need to, understand about moving wings/flaps, braking performance being enhanced/compromised by battery performance, tyre construction, engine modes, diff settings, mapping, fuel flow etc etc to 'enjoy' the sport.
If you just want to watch close racing there's loads of spec series with highly talented drivers racing identical machines. For me, F1 is entirely about the different technical aspects of the car, the actual racing is simply a way to prove who's designed the best car... remove what little information we get on technical aspects of each car and F1 would completely lose its USP for me. I dont want to, nor should I need to, understand about moving wings/flaps, braking performance being enhanced/compromised by battery performance, tyre construction, engine modes, diff settings, mapping, fuel flow etc etc to 'enjoy' the sport.
Nobody has specifically mentionned the inadequacy of the extreme wet tyre. Interestingly the C4 commentators said that because the wet races are being started and run behind safety cars until the conditions are ready for intermediate tyres, Pirelli have no incentive to develop the full wet and as a result it has remained the same for ages now. They could provide a much better full wet if asked, a tyre which they could race on. Change the shape of the tyre, make it taller still and generally do whatever it takes to make these cars raceable in all but the very worst rain.
kambites said:
If you just want to watch close racing there's loads of spec series with highly talented drivers racing identical machines. For me, F1 is entirely about the different technical aspects of the car, the actual racing is simply a way to prove who's designed the best car... remove what little information we get on technical aspects of each car and F1 would completely lose its USP for me.
Indeed, I had considered mentioning that GP3 seems to offer most of what the OP wants - basic aerodynamics, limited technology on the cars, a return to a simpler era. Also they are Normally Aspirated and while they only rev to 8000rpm I would challenge the people complaining about the number of cylinders in modern F1 to tell me, from listening only, how many cylinders are in a GP3 car.The points about which the OP complains (high tech; tyres that wear out; insight for the fans into the teamwork (radio)) are actually attractive to the younger generation. Who also have to work and hence are not overly likely to trek out to Spain to watch a few laps by cars covered in Floviz. Sorry.
With modern "on-demand" setups I do think there might be a market for two different commentry teams working with the same video stream during the race - one for people who are only interested in the racing and one for people who are more interested in the technical side of things. The current Sky and C4 coverage does feel light a slightly unhappy blend of the two; too noddy and simplistic for the technophiles and sometimes too dry for the technophobes.
kambites said:
With modern "on-demand" setups I do think there might be a market for two different commentry teams working with the same video stream during the race - one for people who are only interested in the racing and one for people who are more interested in the technical side of things. The current Sky and C4 coverage does feel light a slightly unhappy blend of the two; too noddy and simplistic for the technophiles and sometimes too dry for the technophobes.
Good idea. Could just run it as a web audio stream. Technically quite easy, aside from minor sync issues. Wouldn't even cost that much to do.Vaud said:
Good idea. Could just run it as a web audio stream. Technically quite easy, aside from minor sync issues. Wouldn't even cost that much to do.
Yeah, I've used this technique before. We have a Bulgarian satalite TV contract which used to show all the F1 races live; I watched the TV and stream radio 5. Unfortunately it's gone onto pay-per-view there now. 
The lack of perfect audio synchronisation isn't the end of the world since you generally don't have many visual cues to the synchronisation anyway. It was typically only off by a few hundred ms. They could even have a video channel which broadcasts only the direct sound from the video (engine sounds etc.) and then give a choice of commentary feeds to lay over the top. It'd be even better if they could lay different graphics over the top so they could show things like fuel usage graphs on the "geek" feed but it probably wouldn't be worth the effort.
I'd love to be able to see things like real-time fuel flow figures so you can really see what the drivers and car are doing when they're "fuel saving".
Edited by kambites on Monday 18th July 08:46
Hey, if we have different audio streams we could even have a V12 audio track for the people who insist that the new engines are boring. In fact, you could get an impressionist to do an impression of Murray Walker (complete with mistakes) for the true feeling of nostalgia ...
Only slight challenge would be arranging for multiple cars to blow up during the race - they are a tad reliable these days. Hamilton's one notwithstanding.
Only slight challenge would be arranging for multiple cars to blow up during the race - they are a tad reliable these days. Hamilton's one notwithstanding.
Consistently for me the best racing classes come from those with too much power and not enough grip.
I love all the technology side of the racing in F1 coupled to tyre strategy and managing fuel as a team with radio messages to help as a team finish in the fastest possible time.
What i dont like are attempts to make overtaking happen with DRS etc.
I would like to see aero packages designed to be less sensitive to running close to the car in front and less efficient brakes, go back to steel brakes. End result would cars coming off a corner closer together along with extended braking zones lending itself to a dive up the inside or a brave run into the outside to make a block pass.
The qualifying format for me is good, but for the top ten shoot out why not give them a out and out qualifying balls to the wall tyre rather than an extra SS or what ever the softest choice that day is. Shakes out the men from the boys. A top ten shoot out, each car gets one warm up lap and one flying lap like super pole was in the bikes.
I love all the technology side of the racing in F1 coupled to tyre strategy and managing fuel as a team with radio messages to help as a team finish in the fastest possible time.
What i dont like are attempts to make overtaking happen with DRS etc.
I would like to see aero packages designed to be less sensitive to running close to the car in front and less efficient brakes, go back to steel brakes. End result would cars coming off a corner closer together along with extended braking zones lending itself to a dive up the inside or a brave run into the outside to make a block pass.
The qualifying format for me is good, but for the top ten shoot out why not give them a out and out qualifying balls to the wall tyre rather than an extra SS or what ever the softest choice that day is. Shakes out the men from the boys. A top ten shoot out, each car gets one warm up lap and one flying lap like super pole was in the bikes.
hkp57 said:
I would like to see aero packages designed to be less sensitive to running close to the car in front and less efficient brakes, go back to steel brakes. End result would cars coming off a corner closer together along with extended braking zones lending itself to a dive up the inside or a brave run into the outside to make a block pass.
Steel brakes are not necessarily less efficient. In fact Williams ran one of their cars with them a few years ago with no apparent performance deficit, but with a pedal feel preferred by that particular driver.Bring back drum brakes to really increase braking distances.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff