Has the FIA forgotten what F1 is really about?
Discussion
Vaud said:
MitchT said:
At what cost in addition to whatever people are already paying for their TV services?
Don't know. I'd buy it, but then I don't have Sky.
StevieBee said:
Doink said:
But why do the FIA have a say in what the engine should be, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't they just there to police the rules whatever they may be?
Yep – that’s correct. It’s F1 itself that sets the rules. The FIA give their authority to implement those rules, which is driven by their ability to properly police them. In practice, it’s a two way street. The FIA is a member’s institution and – in a round about way – represent the interests of the motor industry and get lobbied by them to exert influence on championships so those championships align with their corporate direction.
StevieBee said:
jsf said:
We need a much cheaper architecture than the current V6 hybrid if we are ever going to see new manufacturers involved.
Well, it seems Aston Martin and Porsche are looking seriously at getting stuck in.MitchT said:
I don't have Sky either. I wouldn't pay to watch F1 in its current state. Highlights will do unless they go back to decent sounding engines, flat out start-to-finish races and drop the stupid grid penalties.
I would.Out of interest, when has F1 ever been truly "flat out"? When is your ideal F1 era?
Lewis looked pretty "flat out" in Brazil.
MitchT said:
Does F1 have to be governed by the FIA? I know the organisation has its finger up the bum of most motorsports but it doen't have anything to do with Indy Car or NASCAR, for example, so surely F1 could escape its grasp?
In theory, it doesn't. Plenty of other major league formulae run under different controlling bodies, though the only true global championship that managed this was (I think) A1GP. The issues would be where you could race. The FIA would unlikely permit a non FIA F1 championship from running on FIA sanctioned circuits. And then there's the issue of dual championships (such as you had or have in Boxing with differing governing bodies awarding effectively the same thing to different, but the same championships).
StevieBee said:
In theory, it doesn't. Plenty of other major league formulae run under different controlling bodies, though the only true global championship that managed this was (I think) A1GP.
The issues would be where you could race. The FIA would unlikely permit a non FIA F1 championship from running on FIA sanctioned circuits. And then there's the issue of dual championships (such as you had or have in Boxing with differing governing bodies awarding effectively the same thing to different, but the same championships).
In one scenario we would end up with a split series - like CART and the IRL? Not sure that ended well for anyone (at least in medium term)The issues would be where you could race. The FIA would unlikely permit a non FIA F1 championship from running on FIA sanctioned circuits. And then there's the issue of dual championships (such as you had or have in Boxing with differing governing bodies awarding effectively the same thing to different, but the same championships).
Vaud said:
MitchT said:
I don't have Sky either. I wouldn't pay to watch F1 in its current state. Highlights will do unless they go back to decent sounding engines, flat out start-to-finish races and drop the stupid grid penalties.
I would.Out of interest, when has F1 ever been truly "flat out"? When is your ideal F1 era?
Lewis looked pretty "flat out" in Brazil.
Vaud said:
Out of interest, when has F1 ever been truly "flat out"? When is your ideal F1 era?
It's not so much a case of when it has been truly flat-out, more that numerous credible commentators (DC, etc.) believe it should be.Vaud said:
Lewis looked pretty "flat out" in Brazil.
Lewis had a new engine in Brazil and, having won the championship, was in the luxurious position of not having to worry about penalties arising from failures, so it's inevitable that he was going to push hard. Still, his speed would have been limited to some extent by fuel flow limits and lets not kid ourselves that they're not usually managing tyres and fuel to an embarrassing degree.MitchT said:
Vaud said:
Out of interest, when has F1 ever been truly "flat out"? When is your ideal F1 era?
It's not so much a case of when it has been truly flat-out, more that numerous credible commentators (DC, etc.) believe it should be.Vaud said:
Lewis looked pretty "flat out" in Brazil.
Lewis had a new engine in Brazil and, having won the championship, was in the luxurious position of not having to worry about penalties arising from failures, so it's inevitable that he was going to push hard. Still, his speed would have been limited to some extent by fuel flow limits and lets not kid ourselves that they're not usually managing tyres and fuel to an embarrassing degree.We get good racing when we have stable rules. Seasons go down to the wire when we have some continuity and stability.
I don’t want to see another engine war. I don’t want to see drivers win because of a tyre war and better rubber.
I want to see good, fast raving with a level of aero and power ingenuity allowed, and (some) levelling to enable to enable the non-manufacturers to compete. I don’t want a fully homologated series,
I think Liberty are on the right tracks, but it needs some iterations.
What would fix F1 in 2018.
Hamilton, Alonso or Ricciardo at Mercedes
Vettel and Verstappen at Ferrari.
1988 and 1989 were dominated by McLaren but you had the two best drivers in F1 trying to beat each other.
It still goes down as one of the best seasons in F1.
McLaren in 1988 won 15/16 races and it should have been a full house.
Yes F1 has major issues but the above would make a huge difference to the enjoyment of F1 and to the viewing figures.
Hamilton, Alonso or Ricciardo at Mercedes
Vettel and Verstappen at Ferrari.
1988 and 1989 were dominated by McLaren but you had the two best drivers in F1 trying to beat each other.
It still goes down as one of the best seasons in F1.
McLaren in 1988 won 15/16 races and it should have been a full house.
Yes F1 has major issues but the above would make a huge difference to the enjoyment of F1 and to the viewing figures.
Love him or not you can't say Lewis wasn't on it and he had a great race coming through the field, he finished 4th and and still smiled during the interviews, how many times have we seen him finish second or third and have a face like thunder?
The thing is he wasn't managing his engine nor his tyres much which helped him through the field so I say this, can you imagine if the other 19 cars were doing the same, how far up could he of got, we'd of just had a faster procession in all likelihood and the race would of finished sooner, the racing wouldn't of been any better just would of been at a faster speed, the racing came because he had to battle his way through, OK he had a speed advantage over 99% of the cars but for the one or two laps he got stuck behind one he had a race.
Now that's not to say I want reverse grids because IMO the cars are too fragile and don't make for close wheel to wheel racing, one touch from behind and you have a rear puncture and then your floors gone , the guy behind needs a new front wing, side by side racing just means interlocking wheels, barge boards disintegrate and wishbones fold up, any aero bits fall off and that's the cars handling compromised.
To me it's not the speed or the noise that makes for a good race, you can have just a good a race in lawnmower racing, I had some of my best races in karting in the mid field pack because we were equally matched and swapped and changed places 5 times a lap but we could do that, we could scrape the other guys stickers off his sidepod and leave tyre marks all down it because we knew it wouldn't likely to be race ending if we touched
I think more than anything the FIA and liberty need to get on top of the aero and allow cars to follow more closely, getting a good run out of a corner in itself may negate a power disadvantage you may have
The thing is he wasn't managing his engine nor his tyres much which helped him through the field so I say this, can you imagine if the other 19 cars were doing the same, how far up could he of got, we'd of just had a faster procession in all likelihood and the race would of finished sooner, the racing wouldn't of been any better just would of been at a faster speed, the racing came because he had to battle his way through, OK he had a speed advantage over 99% of the cars but for the one or two laps he got stuck behind one he had a race.
Now that's not to say I want reverse grids because IMO the cars are too fragile and don't make for close wheel to wheel racing, one touch from behind and you have a rear puncture and then your floors gone , the guy behind needs a new front wing, side by side racing just means interlocking wheels, barge boards disintegrate and wishbones fold up, any aero bits fall off and that's the cars handling compromised.
To me it's not the speed or the noise that makes for a good race, you can have just a good a race in lawnmower racing, I had some of my best races in karting in the mid field pack because we were equally matched and swapped and changed places 5 times a lap but we could do that, we could scrape the other guys stickers off his sidepod and leave tyre marks all down it because we knew it wouldn't likely to be race ending if we touched
I think more than anything the FIA and liberty need to get on top of the aero and allow cars to follow more closely, getting a good run out of a corner in itself may negate a power disadvantage you may have
Vaud said:
So what is your view on a solution? There is always a limiting factor in racing. I suspect DC and others are dumbing down their view a little for TV as it is a complex topic.
We get good racing when we have stable rules. Seasons go down to the wire when we have some continuity and stability.
I don’t want to see another engine war. I don’t want to see drivers win because of a tyre war and better rubber.
I want to see good, fast raving with a level of aero and power ingenuity allowed, and (some) levelling to enable to enable the non-manufacturers to compete. I don’t want a fully homologated series,
I think Liberty are on the right tracks, but it needs some iterations.
The major issues is Mercedes and Ferrari will not want to give up their strong positions to allow other teams to close.We get good racing when we have stable rules. Seasons go down to the wire when we have some continuity and stability.
I don’t want to see another engine war. I don’t want to see drivers win because of a tyre war and better rubber.
I want to see good, fast raving with a level of aero and power ingenuity allowed, and (some) levelling to enable to enable the non-manufacturers to compete. I don’t want a fully homologated series,
I think Liberty are on the right tracks, but it needs some iterations.
As much as the teams state they want things to change they are only interested in themselves.
Liberty and the FIA will need to be extremely strong with the likes of Ferrari to get things moving in the right direction.
If Ferrari or another team states they are going to quit then so be it.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
The major issues is Mercedes and Ferrari will not want to give up their strong positions to allow other teams to close.
As much as the teams state they want things to change they are only interested in themselves.
Liberty and the FIA will need to be extremely strong with the likes of Ferrari to get things moving in the right direction.
If Ferrari or another team states they are going to quit then so be it.
I agree.As much as the teams state they want things to change they are only interested in themselves.
Liberty and the FIA will need to be extremely strong with the likes of Ferrari to get things moving in the right direction.
If Ferrari or another team states they are going to quit then so be it.
Ferrari won't quit either. Just where are they going to go? They keep saying that they are F1, they are the heritage, etc, but that applies to them as well. They won't have the same brand presence anywhere else.
Vaud said:
I agree.
Ferrari won't quit either. Just where are they going to go? They keep saying that they are F1, they are the heritage, etc, but that applies to them as well. They won't have the same brand presence anywhere else.
Exactly.Ferrari won't quit either. Just where are they going to go? They keep saying that they are F1, they are the heritage, etc, but that applies to them as well. They won't have the same brand presence anywhere else.
Just a weak threat.
If they were to leave it would be a loss but how big is the question.
They have not exactly been very easy to deal with over the years.
jsf said:
Limiting engines doesn't save a penny. The amount of investment required to make an engine that can last 7 races is huge. Just this change from 4 to 3 engines per year has required new engines with different spec major components that all have to be rig proven. Renault is against the relaxation from the 2018 rules because they just designed a completely new engine for next year to cope with the extra life.
The cost is in the R&D and prototyping, not the production. We need a much cheaper architecture than the current V6 hybrid if we are ever going to see new manufacturers involved.
But you've completely missed off the additional R&D costs of having additional engine specs per engine through the season.The cost is in the R&D and prototyping, not the production. We need a much cheaper architecture than the current V6 hybrid if we are ever going to see new manufacturers involved.
If you have 10 engines for the season, then the engineers will be looking to R&D 10 times.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
The major issues is Mercedes and Ferrari will not want to give up their strong positions to allow other teams to close.
As much as the teams state they want things to change they are only interested in themselves.
Liberty and the FIA will need to be extremely strong with the likes of Ferrari to get things moving in the right direction.
If Ferrari or another team states they are going to quit then so be it.
If that's the case then why are Renault also against Ross Brawn's/Liberty's engine proposals?As much as the teams state they want things to change they are only interested in themselves.
Liberty and the FIA will need to be extremely strong with the likes of Ferrari to get things moving in the right direction.
If Ferrari or another team states they are going to quit then so be it.
It's because the manufacturers invested in the technology with scope for performance and development which can be justified to the boardroom and bean counters.
After all F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle - whatever that means? If its technology then the PUs is a representation but then the flipside is that this costs money.
MitchT said:
Vaud said:
Out of interest, when has F1 ever been truly "flat out"? When is your ideal F1 era?
It's not so much a case of when it has been truly flat-out, more that numerous credible commentators (DC, etc.) believe it should be.Vaud said:
Lewis looked pretty "flat out" in Brazil.
Lewis had a new engine in Brazil and, having won the championship, was in the luxurious position of not having to worry about penalties arising from failures, so it's inevitable that he was going to push hard. Still, his speed would have been limited to some extent by fuel flow limits and lets not kid ourselves that they're not usually managing tyres and fuel to an embarrassing degree.'Flat out' is a bit of a misnomer. If its not the engine then tyres will wear/degrade but drivers want the ability to control the pace.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff