ways to make Formula 1 interesting again
Discussion
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.
Would only work if the new team made their own engine, or had exclusivity, non?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.
If this had been applied this season, do you really think Ferrari would let Haas have an engine advantage over the factory team?
Like Derek and MissChief both say formula 1 has never had the excitement in terms of quantity of on track passing that many mistakenly believe it did.
You could order the manufacturers to build more % into components like brakes etc that'd give drivers more margin to play with and maybe you should - The cracked renault chassis from bumping over a sausage kerbs begs the question whether the trimming has gone too far - but it's allways been a part of prototype racing.
F1's as much a game of chess as a pure motor race, theres always been a balence of hard racing with lulls while tactical strategies are played out and far more going on than just who can clatter their way to the front. If this isnt for you then fine, but constantly b!tching on here about the lack of your definition of excitement makes you sound like a simpleton at a chess touranament who doesnt really understand the game, complains at the lack of stuff going on, and suggests perhaps more custard pies should be thrown and a few rakes left out for people to stand on.
There are loads of motorsports with more on track thrills and spills, the motoGP is particularly good for combining fairing bashing with some of the prestige and moody politics of F1 so go try watching a few different things, theres enough tv channels and motorsport on telly, but for the love of god if you find one you like just enjoy it, without feeling the need to come along to tell us each week how F1 should be more like it eh?
You could order the manufacturers to build more % into components like brakes etc that'd give drivers more margin to play with and maybe you should - The cracked renault chassis from bumping over a sausage kerbs begs the question whether the trimming has gone too far - but it's allways been a part of prototype racing.
F1's as much a game of chess as a pure motor race, theres always been a balence of hard racing with lulls while tactical strategies are played out and far more going on than just who can clatter their way to the front. If this isnt for you then fine, but constantly b!tching on here about the lack of your definition of excitement makes you sound like a simpleton at a chess touranament who doesnt really understand the game, complains at the lack of stuff going on, and suggests perhaps more custard pies should be thrown and a few rakes left out for people to stand on.
There are loads of motorsports with more on track thrills and spills, the motoGP is particularly good for combining fairing bashing with some of the prestige and moody politics of F1 so go try watching a few different things, theres enough tv channels and motorsport on telly, but for the love of god if you find one you like just enjoy it, without feeling the need to come along to tell us each week how F1 should be more like it eh?
Are you attempting to shut down the debate? If you don't like the topic, there is no compulsion to join in and tell everyone else who has a different opinion to you to stop debating it.
I do think F1 is currently anodyne and antiseptic and when it does eventually go pay per view, it will lose at least one more former fan.
Just watch it die.
I'm so glad I was around in an era when it seemed to matter.
I do think F1 is currently anodyne and antiseptic and when it does eventually go pay per view, it will lose at least one more former fan.
Just watch it die.
I'm so glad I was around in an era when it seemed to matter.
hairyben said:
Like Derek and MissChief both say formula 1 has never had the excitement in terms of quantity of on track passing that many mistakenly believe it did.
You could order the manufacturers to build more % into components like brakes etc that'd give drivers more margin to play with and maybe you should - The cracked renault chassis from bumping over a sausage kerbs begs the question whether the trimming has gone too far - but it's allways been a part of prototype racing.
F1's as much a game of chess as a pure motor race, theres always been a balence of hard racing with lulls while tactical strategies are played out and far more going on than just who can clatter their way to the front. If this isnt for you then fine, but constantly b!tching on here about the lack of your definition of excitement makes you sound like a simpleton at a chess touranament who doesnt really understand the game, complains at the lack of stuff going on, and suggests perhaps more custard pies should be thrown and a few rakes left out for people to stand on.
There are loads of motorsports with more on track thrills and spills, the motoGP is particularly good for combining fairing bashing with some of the prestige and moody politics of F1 so go try watching a few different things, theres enough tv channels and motorsport on telly, but for the love of god if you find one you like just enjoy it, without feeling the need to come along to tell us each week how F1 should be more like it eh?
Clearly you didn't see Rosberg and mansel banging wheels at brands, 86 European GP I thinkYou could order the manufacturers to build more % into components like brakes etc that'd give drivers more margin to play with and maybe you should - The cracked renault chassis from bumping over a sausage kerbs begs the question whether the trimming has gone too far - but it's allways been a part of prototype racing.
F1's as much a game of chess as a pure motor race, theres always been a balence of hard racing with lulls while tactical strategies are played out and far more going on than just who can clatter their way to the front. If this isnt for you then fine, but constantly b!tching on here about the lack of your definition of excitement makes you sound like a simpleton at a chess touranament who doesnt really understand the game, complains at the lack of stuff going on, and suggests perhaps more custard pies should be thrown and a few rakes left out for people to stand on.
There are loads of motorsports with more on track thrills and spills, the motoGP is particularly good for combining fairing bashing with some of the prestige and moody politics of F1 so go try watching a few different things, theres enough tv channels and motorsport on telly, but for the love of god if you find one you like just enjoy it, without feeling the need to come along to tell us each week how F1 should be more like it eh?
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
Similar to this 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
Points, points everwhere, fastest lap of the race, quali positions, quickest pitstop, most positions made up
Eric Mc said:
Are you attempting to shut down the debate? If you don't like the topic, there is no compulsion to join in and tell everyone else who has a different opinion to you to stop debating it.
I do think F1 is currently anodyne and antiseptic and when it does eventually go pay per view, it will lose at least one more former fan.
Just watch it die.
I'm so glad I was around in an era when it seemed to matter.
The ultimate point of any debate must be to arrive at a conclusion so compelling the debate is shut down? If I have posted such well done me. If not feel free to counter and illustrate my errors, I have not told anyone they cannot debate. Or if you will, shut me down.I do think F1 is currently anodyne and antiseptic and when it does eventually go pay per view, it will lose at least one more former fan.
Just watch it die.
I'm so glad I was around in an era when it seemed to matter.
The mexican GP's mid race lull is a good example as behind the facade of a nothing-to-see-here deadlock there was still intrigue of the constantly evolving tactical battle, the who pitted when and who'd need to pit again, who could make tyres last, who needs to make time up to counter a threat, not to mention why did they pit kimi, the fun of 2nd guessing the teams strategists, I mean what do they know with their diplomas and supercomputer simulation models pahh, while this isn't the same thing as constantly battering fenders it's always been part of F1 as I recall.
Adrian W said:
Clearly you didn't see Rosberg and mansel banging wheels at brands, 86 European GP I think
Actually no I was aged 7 and of a family of limited means, but I did not say wheel bashing doesn't and didn't happen.you can make a montage of race highlights from any particular year and make F1 look something it isn't on a typical day.
PixelpeepS3 said:
sorry - serious reply...
Bring back refueling
Bring back V8/V10's
Points for laps completed in quali
Extra points for fastest lap of race
I'm interested to know how these would make F1 more interesting, particularly the first two.Bring back refueling
Bring back V8/V10's
Points for laps completed in quali
Extra points for fastest lap of race
Refueling was pretty pointless as the strategists got it nailed to the point that a differing fuel strategy from optimum was pointless.
V8's/V10's - this seems a recurring theme on these pages. Why? How would a different, older tech engine make the sport more interesting?
Someone earlier called for 1000bhp V12's. Does the 950bhp hybrid engine in Lewis' Mercedes not do exactly the same thing?
Sure, the V12 would undoubtedly sound better - I still have fond memories of hearing Alesi's Ferrari 412 T2 wailing around Silverstone in 1995 and I wasn't even at the circuit yet.
However, as a spectacle, changing the engine would do nothing other than change the balance of performance (potentially)
The last two points, I am in the camp of people who don't like the idea of championships being won for things other than completing the race.
F1 needs to decide what it wants to be, because IMO, great racing and cutting edge technology are opposite ends of the same spectrum.
Some of the cloest racing on the planet is NASCAR, but that is probably the least technologically advanced as well and a lot of F1 fans claim it is backwards.
If people want cutting edge technology then we need to allow some proper cutting edge technology, but that will almost certainly mean somebody will develop something that will be utterly dominant, and a lot of F1 fans will moan its boring.
Basically F1 is a victim of its own success and can't win whatever it does.
Some of the cloest racing on the planet is NASCAR, but that is probably the least technologically advanced as well and a lot of F1 fans claim it is backwards.
If people want cutting edge technology then we need to allow some proper cutting edge technology, but that will almost certainly mean somebody will develop something that will be utterly dominant, and a lot of F1 fans will moan its boring.
Basically F1 is a victim of its own success and can't win whatever it does.
hairyben said:
The ultimate point of any debate must be to arrive at a conclusion so compelling the debate is shut down? If I have posted such well done me. If not feel free to counter and illustrate my errors, I have not told anyone they cannot debate. Or if you will, shut me down.
The mexican GP's mid race lull is a good example as behind the facade of a nothing-to-see-here deadlock there was still intrigue of the constantly evolving tactical battle, the who pitted when and who'd need to pit again, who could make tyres last, who needs to make time up to counter a threat, not to mention why did they pit kimi, the fun of 2nd guessing the teams strategists, I mean what do they know with their diplomas and supercomputer simulation models pahh, while this isn't the same thing as constantly battering fenders it's always been part of F1 as I recall.
I disagree with almost everything you say - but I'm not going to ask you to desist from saying what you say - eh?The mexican GP's mid race lull is a good example as behind the facade of a nothing-to-see-here deadlock there was still intrigue of the constantly evolving tactical battle, the who pitted when and who'd need to pit again, who could make tyres last, who needs to make time up to counter a threat, not to mention why did they pit kimi, the fun of 2nd guessing the teams strategists, I mean what do they know with their diplomas and supercomputer simulation models pahh, while this isn't the same thing as constantly battering fenders it's always been part of F1 as I recall.
How about must use a standard road car crank pistons and block the rest is free 5 litre limit for n/a 2.0 for turbo no drs
No hybrid . Bigger tyres and track much reduced wing size standardised under floor no fancy diffusers ,skirts .
No traction no abs manual gearbox , basically a modernised Formula 5000 ,very fast very loud fairly cheap
And i think it would attract a new audience . And perhaps more manufacturers .
No hybrid . Bigger tyres and track much reduced wing size standardised under floor no fancy diffusers ,skirts .
No traction no abs manual gearbox , basically a modernised Formula 5000 ,very fast very loud fairly cheap
And i think it would attract a new audience . And perhaps more manufacturers .
Toma500 said:
How about must use a standard road car crank pistons and block the rest is free 5 litre limit for n/a 2.0 for turbo no drs
No hybrid . Bigger tyres and track much reduced wing size standardised under floor no fancy diffusers ,skirts .
No traction no abs manual gearbox , basically a modernised Formula 5000 ,very fast very loud fairly cheap
And i think it would attract a new audience . And perhaps more manufacturers .
How many manufacturers have a 5 litre engine block from a road car that will be light enough and hard wearing enough to be used in a F1 car? Also the two litre turbo will make over 1,000 HP and more torque while also giving better economy. Why would anyone use a 5L NA engine? More pointless regulation.No hybrid . Bigger tyres and track much reduced wing size standardised under floor no fancy diffusers ,skirts .
No traction no abs manual gearbox , basically a modernised Formula 5000 ,very fast very loud fairly cheap
And i think it would attract a new audience . And perhaps more manufacturers .
Manufacturers want to show that they're in some way being considerate to economy and the environment. Hybrid engines show that. And NA engines are old technology. I agree about your points on aero dominance over mechanical grip. I'm also not sure about being loud either.
hairyben said:
The mexican GP's mid race lull is a good example as behind the facade of a nothing-to-see-here deadlock there was still intrigue of the constantly evolving tactical battle, the who pitted when and who'd need to pit again, who could make tyres last, who needs to make time up to counter a threat, not to mention why did they pit kimi, the fun of 2nd guessing the teams strategists, I mean what do they know with their diplomas and supercomputer simulation models pahh, while this isn't the same thing as constantly battering fenders it's always been part of F1 as I recall.
I was with a couple of friends, one of whom is only a casual F1 viewer, normally of the highlights. He complained before mid race that nothing was going on and the knowledgeable friend told him in detail what was happening. It was clear I think, from quite early on, that LH and NR were cruising. There was no need for either to push it so the gap stayed at 4 secs or so. These two could safely be ignored. But for the rest, it was fascinating as you say. One thing about the Mexican GP, no one could have predicted the outcome, even, perhaps especially, the timekeeper.
I like watching with my knowledgeable friend, firstly because anyone else there doesn't bother me with their questions, and secondly she comes out with some good informed comment. She's a Ferrari supporter but no one is perfect.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff