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.
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.
I've enjoyed the responses and opinions people have about contemporary F1. Thank you all.
However, please can someone tell me how Alesi driving a V12 Ferrari in 1995 does not stir the soul? I remember standing at Luffield 2 that year and the Ferraris were a real highlight, sound and vision, just how it should be. This clip is Australia though...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_MWx2-bD90
Sound and vision again, this time a V10 in 2001. Traction Control not my cup of tea, but what a machine...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwS0aCvxv5k
I guess that I, aged 45, can compare the old with the present. I will not spend money like I used to to follow the sport in various countries because it just does not stir the soul anymore.
Maybe if I was 20 again and had nothing to compare it to (as such, but we now have Youtube) then I might feel different, but to me they just sound broken, they all sound the same, the rules are confusing and the 'technology' is baffling. Tokens are for milk. Gearbox penalty? What? And if it rains then they start behind a road car...then still spin off/crash...
If I want to see Vettel in 2016, I have 3 days I can see him this year. On those 3 days it is impossible as a 'normal' punter to meet him. 25 years ago I could go to testing several times a year and meet him (actually his contemporaries Alesi/Prost if I was patient). For either free or £5.00 a day.
I may well 'live in the past' but the 'sport' of Formula1 itself lives in the past, or the rich history if you like. Hence the lap records, the stats, the tributes, the ex driver pundits, the this and general that.
What we must remember is that nobody at the FIA (sorry Haymarket!) will be reading anything we write here, let alone act on it. They don't listen to the drivers, let alone the fans.
As a quick observation, nobody (unless I'm wrong of course) has commented on the point I made about still following a road car around at (would you believe) road car speeds, just like Imola 1994.
Worse still in the wet, as no downforce is generated by a road car, or an F1 car at road car speeds, so not really safe. Standing water at 80mph following a road car is different to then driving through the same standing water at 160mph at racing speed. How is that 'safe'? The 'sport' is then open to the skill of the drivers to assess the situation from 'cold', just like a standing start. Yes or no?
My final thought for the day is that a lot of 'hybrid' road cars have to be plugged in to the mains. Why is that not seen in F1?
This is for the person who highlighted the Mercedes S500 as an example of Mercedes using the link between F1 and road car hybrid technology (quite rightly so) for marketing...
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/mercedes/s-class/8863...
Not having a dig at the person who posted the Mercedes S500 Hybrid/F1 stuff, but I see no plugs, no mains electricity...
Thanks to everyone and be interested in comments again.
However, please can someone tell me how Alesi driving a V12 Ferrari in 1995 does not stir the soul? I remember standing at Luffield 2 that year and the Ferraris were a real highlight, sound and vision, just how it should be. This clip is Australia though...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_MWx2-bD90
Sound and vision again, this time a V10 in 2001. Traction Control not my cup of tea, but what a machine...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwS0aCvxv5k
I guess that I, aged 45, can compare the old with the present. I will not spend money like I used to to follow the sport in various countries because it just does not stir the soul anymore.
Maybe if I was 20 again and had nothing to compare it to (as such, but we now have Youtube) then I might feel different, but to me they just sound broken, they all sound the same, the rules are confusing and the 'technology' is baffling. Tokens are for milk. Gearbox penalty? What? And if it rains then they start behind a road car...then still spin off/crash...
If I want to see Vettel in 2016, I have 3 days I can see him this year. On those 3 days it is impossible as a 'normal' punter to meet him. 25 years ago I could go to testing several times a year and meet him (actually his contemporaries Alesi/Prost if I was patient). For either free or £5.00 a day.
I may well 'live in the past' but the 'sport' of Formula1 itself lives in the past, or the rich history if you like. Hence the lap records, the stats, the tributes, the ex driver pundits, the this and general that.
What we must remember is that nobody at the FIA (sorry Haymarket!) will be reading anything we write here, let alone act on it. They don't listen to the drivers, let alone the fans.
As a quick observation, nobody (unless I'm wrong of course) has commented on the point I made about still following a road car around at (would you believe) road car speeds, just like Imola 1994.
Worse still in the wet, as no downforce is generated by a road car, or an F1 car at road car speeds, so not really safe. Standing water at 80mph following a road car is different to then driving through the same standing water at 160mph at racing speed. How is that 'safe'? The 'sport' is then open to the skill of the drivers to assess the situation from 'cold', just like a standing start. Yes or no?
My final thought for the day is that a lot of 'hybrid' road cars have to be plugged in to the mains. Why is that not seen in F1?
This is for the person who highlighted the Mercedes S500 as an example of Mercedes using the link between F1 and road car hybrid technology (quite rightly so) for marketing...
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/mercedes/s-class/8863...
Not having a dig at the person who posted the Mercedes S500 Hybrid/F1 stuff, but I see no plugs, no mains electricity...
Thanks to everyone and be interested in comments again.
Eric Mc said:
There are certain people on PH who do not understand that the basis of discussion is that people with differing views air them.
They seem to think that only those who share the same point of view should natter and nod in agreement amongst themselves.
It's a fundamental lack of appreciation of what debate means.
Good point made there.They seem to think that only those who share the same point of view should natter and nod in agreement amongst themselves.
It's a fundamental lack of appreciation of what debate means.
In my opinion, having watched Senna, Alesi, Montoya, Hakkinen, Alonso etc, actually going right back to the 1970's, I find the dross served up as 'contemporary' F1 bland, devoid of soul, character and inspiration.
By comparing the 'sport' today to the 1970's means I actually have a comparison to base today versus yesterday to, admittedly my comparison also forms my opinion.
My opinion is not fact, hence the title of this thread.
Anyone can start a thread.
Does anyone remember the tyre compounds that Vettel was on 5 years ago at the Hungarian Grand Prix? Or Engine Mode? Radio messages? Diff Settings? Engine Mapping?
No?
Radio Ban? I've said elsewhere (to no answer) on here that how does the paying spectator 'benefit' from the team-driver radio messages...
paulguitar said:
BlimeyCharlie said:
I've enjoyed the responses and opinions people have about contemporary F1. Thank you all.
However, please can someone tell me how Alesi driving a V12 Ferrari in 1995 does not stir the soul? I remember standing at Luffield 2 that year and the Ferraris were a real highlight, sound and vision, just how it should be. This clip is Australia though...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_MWx2-bD90
Sound and vision again, this time a V10 in 2001. Traction Control not my cup of tea, but what a machine...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwS0aCvxv5k
I guess that I, aged 45, can compare the old with the present. I will not spend money like I used to to follow the sport in various countries because it just does not stir the soul anymore.
Maybe if I was 20 again and had nothing to compare it to (as such, but we now have Youtube) then I might feel different, but to me they just sound broken, they all sound the same, the rules are confusing and the 'technology' is baffling. Tokens are for milk. Gearbox penalty? What? And if it rains then they start behind a road car...then still spin off/crash...
I am also 45, was also at Silverstone in 1995 amongst many other years, and basically fully agree with you on everything you say. However, please can someone tell me how Alesi driving a V12 Ferrari in 1995 does not stir the soul? I remember standing at Luffield 2 that year and the Ferraris were a real highlight, sound and vision, just how it should be. This clip is Australia though...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_MWx2-bD90
Sound and vision again, this time a V10 in 2001. Traction Control not my cup of tea, but what a machine...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwS0aCvxv5k
I guess that I, aged 45, can compare the old with the present. I will not spend money like I used to to follow the sport in various countries because it just does not stir the soul anymore.
Maybe if I was 20 again and had nothing to compare it to (as such, but we now have Youtube) then I might feel different, but to me they just sound broken, they all sound the same, the rules are confusing and the 'technology' is baffling. Tokens are for milk. Gearbox penalty? What? And if it rains then they start behind a road car...then still spin off/crash...
The SOUL is indeed gone from F1, it used to be absolutely mind blowing live, now it is totally underwhelming. I feel so sorry for those fans who will see their first live F1 with these cars.
The magic has gone, I used to leave a race weekend with sounds and memories in my head that would stay there for months. My one and only hybrid race, Spain 2014, all I could remember was how much cash I had spent.
I have some great memories though. As OP said, the Ferrari V12's, 1995, for me, Alesi into Beckets in a sea of sparks, unforgettable. Another one for me, Hakkinen in 2001 at Spa, down-shifting into the bus-stop chicane. The sound was like WARFARE! The whole idea of going to Spa now just makes me sad, the thought of being in the campsite on the Thursday before race weekend, with all of those crazy German and Dutch fans playing the sounds of F1 thorough the big PA speakers they set up on stands by the tents, and all the anticipation, only to go to the circuit for FP1 and hear these awful sounding cars burbling through the trees...........
But when I see an RAF Tornado flying low near my house, or an F15 Eagle, I still get animated by the speed and sound, the noise, the whole thing is a bit too much to take in.
F1 cars used to be so compelling to listen to, the sound would echo off bridges and grandstands, they had character! They did indeed have SOUL. Not now.
I could tell a Ferrari was leaving the pits from a mile (literally) away, or a Mclaren Honda V12. Each time Senna & Berger lifted off the throttle there would be a big pair of flames from the exhaust for a split second.
There were even slight differences in sound to a Renault V10 compared to a Honda V10 in 1990 & 1991. You also had Lambo V12's and V8 Cosworths too.
Apart from the Honda now, which sounds broken, all the cars sound identical.
Attending F1 has never been cheap, but even the cheap recent testing at Silverstone did not appeal. The thought of being crammed into the one available spectating section, too far from the track to actually see things properly, watching identical cars 'fart' around the track...
No thanks.
Flooble said:
Ah you see, every generation has this issue with memories.
The older ones will say that the sound of a Tornado does not measure up to a Vulcan on a quick reaction take-off, where the ground itself would be shaking.
Of course, the ones before that will be talking about Merlin engines on full throttle, so that's a bit different ... mind you, they make your stomach vibrate too if you get up close.
I'm not entirely sure the generation prior to the "Spitfire Boys" would have been misty-eyed over the sound of a Sopwith Camel. Although there are people who rather like the noise from a Gipsy Major engine. To me, they just sound broken. And with the amount of oil being flung overboard, they look like it too ... to modern eyes anyway.
It's all subjective, as you so rightly note with the very title of the topic.
Thanks, enjoyed reading that.The older ones will say that the sound of a Tornado does not measure up to a Vulcan on a quick reaction take-off, where the ground itself would be shaking.
Of course, the ones before that will be talking about Merlin engines on full throttle, so that's a bit different ... mind you, they make your stomach vibrate too if you get up close.
I'm not entirely sure the generation prior to the "Spitfire Boys" would have been misty-eyed over the sound of a Sopwith Camel. Although there are people who rather like the noise from a Gipsy Major engine. To me, they just sound broken. And with the amount of oil being flung overboard, they look like it too ... to modern eyes anyway.
It's all subjective, as you so rightly note with the very title of the topic.
I love seeing and hearing planes like the Vulcan, Concorde, any jet fighter, B52, Blackbird, Spitfire etc etc.
The sounds last longer and make a bigger impression than what I remember seeing.
I guess we remember a lot of our favourite F1 cars because of the sound. For example, a 2002 McLaren looked much the same as a 2001 McLaren, but the sound...does anyone talk about how amazing the 2002 McLaren sounded? No.
I guess 'modern' F1 has fallen into the Sopwith Camel category, but even that isn't a good comparison because F1 is about business, entertainment. The Show.
Planes, trains, cars etc need to sound powerful, not efficient.
Economy and efficiency doesn't stir the soul.
It is subjective though, well said that man.
Dr Z said:
paulguitar said:
Dr Z said:
paulguitar said:
The current cars sound so terrible they would struggle to excite a kid, let alone someone who has experienced a Ferrari V12!
Just out of interest, what do you find particularly interesting about the V12, in terms of the sound? Apart from a V10/V8/V6 etc?If your objective is to excite a kid so that he or she can become a fan, I would have thought the best course of action is not to blow their ear drums.
As to the V12, I think it is perhaps the sheer pitch of the engine note that makes it particularly exciting. I think with the engines, revs have a lot to do with the problem with the current units. They just don’t sound as if they are making much of an effort, whereas as the V12’s and also very much the V10’s sounded like they were working so hard they might explode at any moment!
I think the sound is something that is almost impossible to describe to someone who has not heard it for themselves. The sound of a V10 or V12 in anger provokes an internal primordial response, it is literally frightening. On that basis, I don’t think F1 live should necessarily be an appropriate place for a child to be. Of course there is the option of ear protection, which potentially makes it more realistic.
So to be honest, I struggle to actually put into words the way the V10’s and V12’s made me feel, I wish I could do so more adequately. They stirred my soul, made me feel acutely, intensely alive, and I have wonderful memories to this day of those cars and the sounds. I have almost no memories at all of my one hybrid-era live race, even though my favourite driver won the event. Really my one memory of that really is just the awful, sinking disappointment when I heard the new cars for the first time.
The way I see it is, once an internal combustion engine goes past around 15000 rpm, the harmonics get mashed together and it loses its distinctiveness. Unfortunately, most modern (from around 1993-2013) naturally aspirated V10s, V12s and V8s stayed above this limit at most racing conditions...Take an older V10 vs V12 for example the Honda V10 in the 1990 McLaren MP4/5 and the V12 in the 1992 MP4/7--they sounded different and interesting because they didn’t rev so high. It allowed you to appreciate the real character of the engine configuration, as the dominant engine ‘note’ and its harmonic overtones jumped through the (audio) frequencies as the engine climbed the rev range.
It’s interesting that the 1995 Ferrari V12 has been cited as the epitome of F1 engine notes. I find it to be so lacking in character that it might as well be white noise. Sacrilege! Mind you, I haven’t heard one in real life, just good recordings of it. The modern V10 had the most interesting/distinctive sound at those very high rpms...but they are still a long way down on the favourite list. What this illustrates is that we have very different ideas about what makes a good sound and therefore what makes F1 attractive.
All of this stuff only concerns someone if they are trackside, which makes a very small percentage of the total F1 audience in a given race weekend...the powers that be are more concerned with the television/online audience, although they did play around with the exhaust pipes to produce more volume in the sound for this year. The current engine regulations do have the ability to sound more high pitched, as the rev limit is actually 15000 rpm (in line with old N/A V10s/V12s). But the regulations specify a constant fuel flow of 100 kg/hr after 10500 rpm, so there is no benefit for the manufacturers to let the engine rev out much higher past that 10500 rpm limit. If they can stretch the power band out to around 14500 rpm or so, by specifying that the maximum permitted fuel flow is achieved at that rpm rather than lower down, they can change the sound to a more high pitched wail, as the manufacturers will then have the incentive to let their internal combustion engines to rev to that limit...not that it is necessary, in my opinion.
For the reasons I mention above, I find the current V6 in a turbo/hybrid config to be an interesting sound to listen to than the previous V8s, V10s and V12s. And for a restricted engine formula such as this, each manufacturer’s PU sounds different too. That’s always a bonus. Hopefully, I get to hear the current engines next year when I plan to go to a GP.
PS: Thanks for the appreciation.
My hat!
The 1994 car was also something to behold. Watching at Copse corner you could hear the car accelerate from Luffield, up through the gears, sound echoing off the grandstands and bridge. Brilliant.
To say a Ferrari V12 in any F1 car is/was lacking in character is like saying you don't like fire because it is too hot!
If an engine is a V12, or a V11 whatever is, to me, irrelevant. A flat 6 Porsche engine sounds great too, along with a 5 cylinder Quattro from the 80's. It is a point of reference that the engine is this or that, the sound generated is what is all about.
I love the sound of a Lancia Delta S4 from 1986, supercharged and turbocharged, only 4 cylinders. Also loved the sound of a 205 T16 which was 4 cylinders and turbocharged. A Metro 6R4 with a V6 sounded grand too.
A Ferrari 333 SP sounds ace, as does a Sauber Mercedes C11, with a turbo'd V8.
Formula 1 today is trying to be a Vulcan bomber but with Airbus A380 engines.
Blimey, a lot of recent talk about tyres and the BTCC.
This is just an observation and therefore the opinion I have, but I liked it the race was stopped on Sunday (Spa of course) so we could see the cars and other details/people/stuff we wouldn't normally see, via the tv.
Not sure what this has to do with the topic!
Also, the 'fixed' camera at the bottom of Eau Rouge was good to see. Real impression of speed. In fact all the cameras around that bend were ace.
This is just an observation and therefore the opinion I have, but I liked it the race was stopped on Sunday (Spa of course) so we could see the cars and other details/people/stuff we wouldn't normally see, via the tv.
Not sure what this has to do with the topic!
Also, the 'fixed' camera at the bottom of Eau Rouge was good to see. Real impression of speed. In fact all the cameras around that bend were ace.
coppice said:
It pains me to admit it - and it sure won't happen again - but for once BCE is right . The rules system seems to be designed for OCD saddos who spend too much time watching TV and haven't a girlfriend. It is utterly ludicrous that racing drivers are fined for impersonating racing drivers by trying , and sometimes failing , to overtake somebody. Short of a Schumacher or Senna style full frontal attack, drivers should be free to take chances .
Even more absurd are the idiotic tyre regs , but they seem the pinnacle of common sense in comparison to the asinine rules which give out engine tokens and impose penalties on teams whose racing car happens to break too often. Can't think Colin Chapman would have stuck around to long under this Emperor's New Clothes pantomime. Or Gordon Murray ..
You mean geeks?Even more absurd are the idiotic tyre regs , but they seem the pinnacle of common sense in comparison to the asinine rules which give out engine tokens and impose penalties on teams whose racing car happens to break too often. Can't think Colin Chapman would have stuck around to long under this Emperor's New Clothes pantomime. Or Gordon Murray ..
The kind of people who love 'data'?
The kind of people who have their own Youtube channel, set in a bedroom at their Mum and Dad's house, where they discuss the race, where 'strategy' is a big theme?
I'm thinking 'Robot Wars' would be better.
F1 should be glamorous, not a geekfest.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff