ways to make Formula 1 interesting again
Discussion
Adrian W said:
Iva Barchetta said:
Why didn't we think of that earlier ^^^^ a one ,make formula.
That'll sort the men from the Max's.
It'll also save everybody a fortune.
Drivers have to race in Country colours ,British racing green, Italian racing red ,Indian racing gold.
Wasn't that A1GP ?That'll sort the men from the Max's.
It'll also save everybody a fortune.
Drivers have to race in Country colours ,British racing green, Italian racing red ,Indian racing gold.
How's A1GP doing nowadays ?......Oh, not so good.
I think F1 jumped the shark when they decided to save the planet.
Yes there has to be some relevance to modern motoring concerns to keep the manufacturers happy, but this is F1 ffs, not some hyper-mileing endurance test.
Nobody really cares about the amazing feats of engineering going on under the covers. They sound like crap and one of the most famous combo of car and engine maker still can't get their f
king set up to work after about 3 years of trying.
Cancel the Greenpeace subs and let's get back to Formula 1 !!!
Yes there has to be some relevance to modern motoring concerns to keep the manufacturers happy, but this is F1 ffs, not some hyper-mileing endurance test.
Nobody really cares about the amazing feats of engineering going on under the covers. They sound like crap and one of the most famous combo of car and engine maker still can't get their f
king set up to work after about 3 years of trying.Cancel the Greenpeace subs and let's get back to Formula 1 !!!
I'm not going to quote individual posters but will make a few points.
Refuelling is boring. The facts back this up. More passes are made on track (DRS assisted I'll concede) than when there was refuelling. Surely passes on track are what people want to see?
Large capacity normally aspirated engines will NEVER come back. They bear no resemblance to anything any mass market manufacturer has for sale. F1 is too expensive as a pure marketing tool these days. There needs to be some semblance of R&D or carry over from F1 into car manufacturing. Besides, Renault stated unequivocally that if the NA engines stayed they'd leave. And Honda wouldn't come back either.
I also wish people wouldn't go on (and on) about the 'good old days'. I've posted before the the good old days weren't good. They were st. Really st. 2/3 of the field retiring with mechanical issues, three or four cars on the lead lap, gaps measured in double figures between drivers. Sure we pick and choose great battles and amazing overtakes but overall the races were boring as fk. I, for one, do not want a return to the old days.
Unlimited Testing should NOT return either. Ferrari used to run round Fiorano every day for weeks at a time, so much so that they had a dedicated testing team that measured in the dozens. I do agree that there should be some more testing, ideally at permanent tracks after the GP but limited distances for race drivers and unlimited for non-race drivers.
Refuelling is boring. The facts back this up. More passes are made on track (DRS assisted I'll concede) than when there was refuelling. Surely passes on track are what people want to see?
Large capacity normally aspirated engines will NEVER come back. They bear no resemblance to anything any mass market manufacturer has for sale. F1 is too expensive as a pure marketing tool these days. There needs to be some semblance of R&D or carry over from F1 into car manufacturing. Besides, Renault stated unequivocally that if the NA engines stayed they'd leave. And Honda wouldn't come back either.
I also wish people wouldn't go on (and on) about the 'good old days'. I've posted before the the good old days weren't good. They were s
t. Really st. 2/3 of the field retiring with mechanical issues, three or four cars on the lead lap, gaps measured in double figures between drivers. Sure we pick and choose great battles and amazing overtakes but overall the races were boring as fk. I, for one, do not want a return to the old days.Unlimited Testing should NOT return either. Ferrari used to run round Fiorano every day for weeks at a time, so much so that they had a dedicated testing team that measured in the dozens. I do agree that there should be some more testing, ideally at permanent tracks after the GP but limited distances for race drivers and unlimited for non-race drivers.
Edited by MissChief on Monday 31st October 21:54
swisstoni said:
I think F1 jumped the shark when they decided to save the planet.
Yes there has to be some relevance to modern motoring concerns to keep the manufacturers happy, but this is F1 ffs, not some hyper-mileing endurance test.
Nobody really cares about the amazing feats of engineering going on under the covers. They sound like crap and one of the most famous combo of car and engine maker still can't get their fking set up to work after about 3 years of trying.
Cancel the Greenpeace subs and let's get back to Formula 1 !!!
I knew things were heading in the wrong direction when this abomination appeared on track - Yes there has to be some relevance to modern motoring concerns to keep the manufacturers happy, but this is F1 ffs, not some hyper-mileing endurance test.
Nobody really cares about the amazing feats of engineering going on under the covers. They sound like crap and one of the most famous combo of car and engine maker still can't get their f
king set up to work after about 3 years of trying.Cancel the Greenpeace subs and let's get back to Formula 1 !!!
It is very easy to level the rose tinted specs accusation, and in some cases very valid, but to contend a few of your boldly and profanely stated points...
Flagship performance models are still built by many manufacturers, and let's face it, are the sex and bragging of manufacturers marketing strategies. Boring cars advertised via mpg for the minions, roll out the big (boring greenie restricted) fast lumps when they want to show off properly
I agree, F1 is not a marketing tool. It never has been for the likes of Williams, McLaren etc. Red cars had the "win Sunday sell Monday" mentality, but other top teams had no other business other than going racing. But that was the good old... Oops sorry.
Not sure everyone would agree with your thoughts on this. A car with a minor fault nursed by a driver 30 seconds up track being caught over the last 10 laps by a fitter car was not unusual. Yes races were boring at times, and that will always be the case. But mechanical intolerance and fragility brought a lot to the party. The days of turbo versus N/A in the early 80s were at times some of the most exciting I have witnessed. Quick but truckish Ferraris being hounded by slower but nimble Cosworths were staple food some years, but admittedly some awful circuits promoting frustrating crocodiles of cars all trying to pass one another with a red mobile chicane up front wasn't the best spectacle - but still better than DRS. And then we had the fast but seriously fragile turbo Renaults either winning or exploding under Prost and Arrnoux - epitomised in GPI by the cartoons of the day. The fastest cars did not always win in those bad old days.
.
Yes it was expensive, Fezza were not the only outfit with a fully committed test team - ask Jock Clear about his time heading the Williams test team. I think it is fine if a team want to invest their budget renting a circuit and flogging the life out of their developments and staff to ensure that they wring the last ounce of performance out of them. Its their money after all. That is how proper racing teams make competitive progress - assuming they have the right personnel of course. Of course if they can't afford it, then let's have them out to a formula they can afford and get the big boys to bring more cars out to play at each weekend. Or even run two classes in one f1 race as used to happen for the people still wanting to see minnows out to play against each other. A lot of them grew up to become the leading manufacturer teams today.
So, referring to an earlier paragraph and naming names now, I agree with the the earlier poster's idea that Adrian Newey should be banned. That'll probably fix evveryfink.
MissChief said:
I'm not going to quote individual posters but will make a few points.
Refuelling is boring. The facts back this up. More passes are made on track (DRS assisted I'll concede) than when there was refuelling. Surely passes on track are what people want to see?
Really. Seeing one car made artificially faster than another by virtue of being one second behind simply driving past another car on the straight is what you want to see? Not me. The "good old days" as you called them had drivers outbraking other drivers, or slipstreaming on the straights. Stuff that takes skill rather than artificial mechanisms, and with less tech like proper gearboxes and tyres, other opportunities arose due to errors by drivers struggling wth the slightly more agricultural cars.Refuelling is boring. The facts back this up. More passes are made on track (DRS assisted I'll concede) than when there was refuelling. Surely passes on track are what people want to see?
MissChief said:
Large capacity normally aspirated engines will NEVER come back. They bear no resemblance to anything any mass market manufacturer has for sale. F1 is too expensive as a pure marketing tool these days. There needs to be some semblance of R&D or carry over from F1 into car manufacturing. Besides, Renault stated unequivocally that if the NA engines stayed they'd leave. And Honda wouldn't come back either.
Really? Top end performance cars no longer exist from mainstream manufacturers? Porsche went out of business when I wasn't looking? No AMG Mercs then? no big Beemers? High end performance models in ranges of boring everyday eurobox and Jap cars don't exist? I suppose Ford and GM aren't building anything lumpy in the US or antipodes either. Could have sworn I saw a rhd V8 mustang in a UK showroom the other day - admittedly crap, but something Ford haven't done for a long time.Flagship performance models are still built by many manufacturers, and let's face it, are the sex and bragging of manufacturers marketing strategies. Boring cars advertised via mpg for the minions, roll out the big (boring greenie restricted) fast lumps when they want to show off properly
I agree, F1 is not a marketing tool. It never has been for the likes of Williams, McLaren etc. Red cars had the "win Sunday sell Monday" mentality, but other top teams had no other business other than going racing. But that was the good old... Oops sorry.
MissChief said:
I also wish people wouldn't go on (and on) about the 'good old days'. I've posted before the the good old days weren't good. They were st. Really st. 2/3 of the field retiring with mechanical issues, three or four cars on the lead lap, gaps measured in double figures between drivers. Sure we pick and choose great battles and amazing overtakes but overall the races were boring as fk. I, for one, do not want a return to the old days.
Well, there is some truth in what you say. But I guess if you like the monotonous predictability that reliability brings to F1, you would not want to return to high performance, highly stressed and therefore unreliable engines and running gear. So essentially, in saying what you do, you unfortunately advocate that we just stick to one of the same two cars winning week in week out, and the rest DRSing the hell out of each other for the minor places, or getting penalised when they have the audacity to try any other sort of pass.t. Really st. 2/3 of the field retiring with mechanical issues, three or four cars on the lead lap, gaps measured in double figures between drivers. Sure we pick and choose great battles and amazing overtakes but overall the races were boring as fk. I, for one, do not want a return to the old days.Not sure everyone would agree with your thoughts on this. A car with a minor fault nursed by a driver 30 seconds up track being caught over the last 10 laps by a fitter car was not unusual. Yes races were boring at times, and that will always be the case. But mechanical intolerance and fragility brought a lot to the party. The days of turbo versus N/A in the early 80s were at times some of the most exciting I have witnessed. Quick but truckish Ferraris being hounded by slower but nimble Cosworths were staple food some years, but admittedly some awful circuits promoting frustrating crocodiles of cars all trying to pass one another with a red mobile chicane up front wasn't the best spectacle - but still better than DRS. And then we had the fast but seriously fragile turbo Renaults either winning or exploding under Prost and Arrnoux - epitomised in GPI by the cartoons of the day. The fastest cars did not always win in those bad old days.
MissChief said:
Unlimited Testing should NOT return either. Ferrari used to run round Fiorano every day for weeks at a time, so much so that they had a dedicated testing team that measured in the dozens. I do agree that there should be some more testing, ideally at permanent tracks after the GP but limited distances for race drivers and unlimited for non-race drivers.
Testing was a way for the minnows to innovate and progress. McLaren and Williams came back to the front because of it, and of course a certain designer who shall remain unnamed (for now) who learned and proved his design concepts in the real world rather than on a geeky sim . Yes it was expensive, Fezza were not the only outfit with a fully committed test team - ask Jock Clear about his time heading the Williams test team. I think it is fine if a team want to invest their budget renting a circuit and flogging the life out of their developments and staff to ensure that they wring the last ounce of performance out of them. Its their money after all. That is how proper racing teams make competitive progress - assuming they have the right personnel of course. Of course if they can't afford it, then let's have them out to a formula they can afford and get the big boys to bring more cars out to play at each weekend. Or even run two classes in one f1 race as used to happen for the people still wanting to see minnows out to play against each other. A lot of them grew up to become the leading manufacturer teams today.
So, referring to an earlier paragraph and naming names now, I agree with the the earlier poster's idea that Adrian Newey should be banned. That'll probably fix evveryfink.
Edited by MissChief on Monday 31st October 21:54
SeeFive said:
It is very easy to level the rose tinted specs accusation, and in some cases very valid, but to contend a few of your boldly and profanely stated points...
Porsche are downsizing most of their range and introducing turbocharging. As are AMG. Large capacity normally aspirated engines are dying out as more stringent emissions targets force them out of use.
Flagship performance models are still built by many manufacturers, and let's face it, are the sex and bragging of manufacturers marketing strategies. Boring cars advertised via mpg for the minions, roll out the big (boring greenie restricted) fast lumps when they want to show off properly
I agree, F1 is not a marketing tool. It never has been for the likes of Williams, McLaren etc. Red cars had the "win Sunday sell Monday" mentality, but other top teams had no other business other than going racing. But that was the good old... Oops sorry.
Not sure everyone would agree with your thoughts on this. A car with a minor fault nursed by a driver 30 seconds up track being caught over the last 10 laps by a fitter car was not unusual. Yes races were boring at times, and that will always be the case. But mechanical intolerance and fragility brought a lot to the party. The days of turbo versus N/A in the early 80s were at times some of the most exciting I have witnessed. Quick but truckish Ferraris being hounded by slower but nimble Cosworths were staple food some years, but admittedly some awful circuits promoting frustrating crocodiles of cars all trying to pass one another with a red mobile chicane up front wasn't the best spectacle - but still better than DRS. And then we had the fast but seriously fragile turbo Renaults either winning or exploding under Prost and Arrnoux - epitomised in GPI by the cartoons of the day. The fastest cars did not always win in those bad old days.
.
Yes it was expensive, Fezza were not the only outfit with a fully committed test team - ask Jock Clear about his time heading the Williams test team. I think it is fine if a team want to invest their budget renting a circuit and flogging the life out of their developments and staff to ensure that they wring the last ounce of performance out of them. Its their money after all. That is how proper racing teams make competitive progress - assuming they have the right personnel of course. Of course if they can't afford it, then let's have them out to a formula they can afford and get the big boys to bring more cars out to play at each weekend. Or even run two classes in one f1 race as used to happen for the people still wanting to see minnows out to play against each other. A lot of them grew up to become the leading manufacturer teams today.
So, referring to an earlier paragraph and naming names now, I agree with the the earlier poster's idea that Adrian Newey should be banned. That'll probably fix evveryfink.
MissChief said:
I'm not going to quote individual posters but will make a few points.
Refuelling is boring. The facts back this up. More passes are made on track (DRS assisted I'll concede) than when there was refuelling. Surely passes on track are what people want to see?
Really. Seeing one car made artificially faster than another by virtue of being one second behind simply driving past another car on the straight is what you want to see? Not me. The "good old days" as you called them had drivers outbraking other drivers, or slipstreaming on the straights. Stuff that takes skill rather than artificial mechanisms, and with less tech like proper gearboxes and tyres, other opportunities arose due to errors by drivers struggling wth the slightly more agricultural cars.Refuelling is boring. The facts back this up. More passes are made on track (DRS assisted I'll concede) than when there was refuelling. Surely passes on track are what people want to see?
MissChief said:
I didn't say I wanted to see DRS but the casual fan watched for on track action and they NEED the casual fan. The below graph shows overtakes on track for the past twenty years.
Ten whole passes, which might not have even been for points, in 2005, 2008 and 2009? That's not exciting.
Large capacity normally aspirated engines will NEVER come back. They bear no resemblance to anything any mass market manufacturer has for sale. F1 is too expensive as a pure marketing tool these days. There needs to be some semblance of R&D or carry over from F1 into car manufacturing. Besides, Renault stated unequivocally that if the NA engines stayed they'd leave. And Honda wouldn't come back either.
Really? Top end performance cars no longer exist from mainstream manufacturers? Porsche went out of business when I wasn't looking? No AMG Mercs then? no big Beemers? High end performance models in ranges of boring everyday eurobox and Jap cars don't exist? I suppose Ford and GM aren't building anything lumpy in the US or antipodes either. Could have sworn I saw a rhd V8 mustang in a UK showroom the other day - admittedly crap, but something Ford haven't done for a long time.Ten whole passes, which might not have even been for points, in 2005, 2008 and 2009? That's not exciting.
Large capacity normally aspirated engines will NEVER come back. They bear no resemblance to anything any mass market manufacturer has for sale. F1 is too expensive as a pure marketing tool these days. There needs to be some semblance of R&D or carry over from F1 into car manufacturing. Besides, Renault stated unequivocally that if the NA engines stayed they'd leave. And Honda wouldn't come back either.
Porsche are downsizing most of their range and introducing turbocharging. As are AMG. Large capacity normally aspirated engines are dying out as more stringent emissions targets force them out of use.
Flagship performance models are still built by many manufacturers, and let's face it, are the sex and bragging of manufacturers marketing strategies. Boring cars advertised via mpg for the minions, roll out the big (boring greenie restricted) fast lumps when they want to show off properly
I agree, F1 is not a marketing tool. It never has been for the likes of Williams, McLaren etc. Red cars had the "win Sunday sell Monday" mentality, but other top teams had no other business other than going racing. But that was the good old... Oops sorry.
MissChief said:
I also wish people wouldn't go on (and on) about the 'good old days'. I've posted before the the good old days weren't good. They were st. Really st. 2/3 of the field retiring with mechanical issues, three or four cars on the lead lap, gaps measured in double figures between drivers. Sure we pick and choose great battles and amazing overtakes but overall the races were boring as fk. I, for one, do not want a return to the old days.
Well, there is some truth in what you say. But I guess if you like the monotonous predictability that reliability brings to F1, you would not want to return to high performance, highly stressed and therefore unreliable engines and running gear. So essentially, in saying what you do, you unfortunately advocate that we just stick to one of the same two cars winning week in week out, and the rest DRSing the hell out of each other for the minor places, or getting penalised when they have the audacity to try any other sort of pass.t. Really st. 2/3 of the field retiring with mechanical issues, three or four cars on the lead lap, gaps measured in double figures between drivers. Sure we pick and choose great battles and amazing overtakes but overall the races were boring as fk. I, for one, do not want a return to the old days.Not sure everyone would agree with your thoughts on this. A car with a minor fault nursed by a driver 30 seconds up track being caught over the last 10 laps by a fitter car was not unusual. Yes races were boring at times, and that will always be the case. But mechanical intolerance and fragility brought a lot to the party. The days of turbo versus N/A in the early 80s were at times some of the most exciting I have witnessed. Quick but truckish Ferraris being hounded by slower but nimble Cosworths were staple food some years, but admittedly some awful circuits promoting frustrating crocodiles of cars all trying to pass one another with a red mobile chicane up front wasn't the best spectacle - but still better than DRS. And then we had the fast but seriously fragile turbo Renaults either winning or exploding under Prost and Arrnoux - epitomised in GPI by the cartoons of the day. The fastest cars did not always win in those bad old days.
MissChief said:
Unlimited Testing should NOT return either. Ferrari used to run round Fiorano every day for weeks at a time, so much so that they had a dedicated testing team that measured in the dozens. I do agree that there should be some more testing, ideally at permanent tracks after the GP but limited distances for race drivers and unlimited for non-race drivers.
Testing was a way for the minnows to innovate and progress. McLaren and Williams came back to the front because of it, and of course a certain designer who shall remain unnamed (for now) who learned and proved his design concepts in the real world rather than on a geeky sim . Yes it was expensive, Fezza were not the only outfit with a fully committed test team - ask Jock Clear about his time heading the Williams test team. I think it is fine if a team want to invest their budget renting a circuit and flogging the life out of their developments and staff to ensure that they wring the last ounce of performance out of them. Its their money after all. That is how proper racing teams make competitive progress - assuming they have the right personnel of course. Of course if they can't afford it, then let's have them out to a formula they can afford and get the big boys to bring more cars out to play at each weekend. Or even run two classes in one f1 race as used to happen for the people still wanting to see minnows out to play against each other. A lot of them grew up to become the leading manufacturer teams today.
So, referring to an earlier paragraph and naming names now, I agree with the the earlier poster's idea that Adrian Newey should be banned. That'll probably fix evveryfink.
Edited by MissChief on Monday 31st October 21:54
I think they should have a series of mystery boxes they drive over on the start/finish line every lap..
These mystery boxes could equip the driver with banana skins for releasing at a time of their choosing on the understanding that they could only 'hold' one object at a time.
Other ideas for box contents could be like heat seeking shells to fire at the car in front (could do these in a three) and maybe some other shells which are just fired in a straight line either forward or backwards (colour those green to avoid confusion)
Also, what about a box which automatically makes everyone else smaller for a short period of time, allowing the holder to 'squash' other opponents if they drive directly over them when they are small?
These mystery boxes could equip the driver with banana skins for releasing at a time of their choosing on the understanding that they could only 'hold' one object at a time.
Other ideas for box contents could be like heat seeking shells to fire at the car in front (could do these in a three) and maybe some other shells which are just fired in a straight line either forward or backwards (colour those green to avoid confusion)
Also, what about a box which automatically makes everyone else smaller for a short period of time, allowing the holder to 'squash' other opponents if they drive directly over them when they are small?
Le TVR said:
They could consider the "concession" rules similar to those applied in MotoGP?
New teams could have:
- No engine development freeze
- unlimited testing
- 9 engines per season
Once the team achieves a certain number of points/podiums then the concessions are removed.
That's a pretty good way of evening things up, providing the new teams have the budget to support it.New teams could have:
- No engine development freeze
- unlimited testing
- 9 engines per season
Once the team achieves a certain number of points/podiums then the concessions are removed.
At the moment the rules are very prescriptive, severely limiting innovation.
I'd like to see them a lot looser, though ( just to be contrary ) severely limiting aero complexity - perhaps something like 'car must fit inside a box of dimensions X Y Z, only single element wings with a specified total area. Car min and max weight ( with a set allowance for driver weight so larger drivers aren't penalised ).
For engine regs maybe define a total amount of energy the car can have onboard at startup on the grid, defined as calorific value of the fuel x its mass plus capacity of any hybrid batteries. Type of fuel and engine configuration totally up to the manufacturer
I'd like to see them a lot looser, though ( just to be contrary ) severely limiting aero complexity - perhaps something like 'car must fit inside a box of dimensions X Y Z, only single element wings with a specified total area. Car min and max weight ( with a set allowance for driver weight so larger drivers aren't penalised ).
For engine regs maybe define a total amount of energy the car can have onboard at startup on the grid, defined as calorific value of the fuel x its mass plus capacity of any hybrid batteries. Type of fuel and engine configuration totally up to the manufacturer
sorry - serious reply...
Stop adding into the rules the control of anything which prevents the drivers giving 100% every second of a race.
this would include, tyre and mechanical (number of engines/gearboxes/turbos etc) limits
Bring back refueling
Bring back V8/V10's
Reduce areo reliance
Points for laps completed in quali
Extra points for fastest lap of race
Stop adding into the rules the control of anything which prevents the drivers giving 100% every second of a race.
this would include, tyre and mechanical (number of engines/gearboxes/turbos etc) limits
Bring back refueling
Bring back V8/V10's
Reduce areo reliance
Points for laps completed in quali
Extra points for fastest lap of race
PixelpeepS3 said:
sorry - serious reply...
Stop adding into the rules the control of anything which prevents the drivers giving 100% every second of a race.
this would include, tyre and mechanical (number of engines/gearboxes/turbos etc) limits
Bring back refueling
Bring back V8/V10's
Reduce areo reliance
Points for laps completed in quali
Extra points for fastest lap of race
maybe an MPG limit i.e you have to average this MPG for the race (thats my green concession) how you get that MPG is up to you have no limits on engine type/capacityStop adding into the rules the control of anything which prevents the drivers giving 100% every second of a race.
this would include, tyre and mechanical (number of engines/gearboxes/turbos etc) limits
Bring back refueling
Bring back V8/V10's
Reduce areo reliance
Points for laps completed in quali
Extra points for fastest lap of race
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff