F1 doing what it does best, ruining classic race tracks...
Osterrichring
Hockenheim
Mt Fuji
Mexico City
Whos next...!?
You forgot:
Spa
Nürburgring
Silverstone
Monza
Imola
2017 F1 Calendar Released, Germany Dropped, Le Mans Clash Avoided
- Thread starter Paul Jeffrey
- Start date
You forgot:
Spa
Nürburgring
Silverstone
Monza
Imola
Haha, I agree with you to a point. However the tracks you mentioned still have something about them, whilst they have been changed massively, they are still decent tracks. I think the ones I mentioned were changed so much and for the worse. However yep, you can pretty much add any track which we have been going to for 20 years plus as "altered" for the worse.
A lot of talk here about the tracks being boring, it's not the circuits that are the problem, it's Bernie, the shareholders, car designs that rely on to much aero for grip, and big $$$ "buy my seat" drivers.
The tracks that F1 race on are fine for the most part, as we've seen in many past races it's the cars themselves that are the problem for F1.
Give them all the same power curves and boost affects so there's some parity, reduce the reliance on aero in favor of mechanical grip, then we might see some real battles going on again.
Maybe the FIA & FOM should consider using ballast to create some excitement/competition in F1, if they had ballast in 2016 the Mercs would not have dominated 90% of the season, and we "the paying public" would of had some potentially thrilling race finishes, instead we had a totally predictable Mercedes white-wash, with the Hamilton-Rosberg rivalry providing the only sparks to be seen all year.
Predictably 2017 doesn't look like it will be much different, just wider tyres so there's a larger grip patch under those bigger wings that will create even more dirty air.
IMO, to much technology is ruining F1.
The tracks that F1 race on are fine for the most part, as we've seen in many past races it's the cars themselves that are the problem for F1.
Give them all the same power curves and boost affects so there's some parity, reduce the reliance on aero in favor of mechanical grip, then we might see some real battles going on again.
Maybe the FIA & FOM should consider using ballast to create some excitement/competition in F1, if they had ballast in 2016 the Mercs would not have dominated 90% of the season, and we "the paying public" would of had some potentially thrilling race finishes, instead we had a totally predictable Mercedes white-wash, with the Hamilton-Rosberg rivalry providing the only sparks to be seen all year.
Predictably 2017 doesn't look like it will be much different, just wider tyres so there's a larger grip patch under those bigger wings that will create even more dirty air.
IMO, to much technology is ruining F1.
Chris
Premium
I understand your point, But that goes entirely against the concept and ethos of Formula One as it's all about not being a spec series. The whole point of it is for teams to build their own cars. Nor does ballast work because it will affect different cars at different tracks in a different manner.
Unfortunately I cannot see it happening anytime soon, but the best thing for the sport is a more equal distribution of prize money and a spending cap. If those two things can be achieved, F1 will become infinitely healthier and more competitive in a matter of months.
Hopefully Liberty media can go someway to achieving this as they have stated they intend to make it more profitable and healthier for all teams.
@Chris Stacey
Agreed, there are some distinct issues with the prize money distribution as you say. But I feel there needs to be some controls in place that make it difficult for a team to dominate like Merc has done, or RB did in the past.
Or maybe Ive been heavily influenced by the quality and parity in our V8SC, how many series do you get were the top 10 are a mere 4 tenths of a second apart, and races are won by a thousandth........We Aussies are spoilt.........Sydney this weekend, final event, hope the Gis pulls off the championship.
Cheers
Agreed, there are some distinct issues with the prize money distribution as you say. But I feel there needs to be some controls in place that make it difficult for a team to dominate like Merc has done, or RB did in the past.
Or maybe Ive been heavily influenced by the quality and parity in our V8SC, how many series do you get were the top 10 are a mere 4 tenths of a second apart, and races are won by a thousandth........We Aussies are spoilt.........Sydney this weekend, final event, hope the Gis pulls off the championship.
Cheers
After 2017
BOP makes sense to me in touring cars and GT's where you want a variety of production based vehicles racing that all have different racing potential that needs to be equalised. It has no place in a prototype formula like F1 though where everyone has the chance to improve their car within the rules.
Budget restrictions can never work when dealing with multinational car companies. If you stopped the race team spending money on something all that would happen is the spending would be absorbed somewhere in their massive road car R&D budgets and no-one would be the wiser.
The sensible alternative to a budget restriction it to mandate standard parts as most racing series already do and F1 does with things like ECU's. Aero has almost no relevance to road car development. If the cars used standard aero parts then 99% of the fans would be none the wiser and the racing would be a lot better. Why have every team spending money on custom steering wheels and electronics? It certainly doesn't improve the racing. They have fixed gear ratios now so why not just go the whole hog and make a standard box and casing. Why not standardise the monocoque, brakes and uprights as is done in the DTM?
Budget restrictions can never work when dealing with multinational car companies. If you stopped the race team spending money on something all that would happen is the spending would be absorbed somewhere in their massive road car R&D budgets and no-one would be the wiser.
The sensible alternative to a budget restriction it to mandate standard parts as most racing series already do and F1 does with things like ECU's. Aero has almost no relevance to road car development. If the cars used standard aero parts then 99% of the fans would be none the wiser and the racing would be a lot better. Why have every team spending money on custom steering wheels and electronics? It certainly doesn't improve the racing. They have fixed gear ratios now so why not just go the whole hog and make a standard box and casing. Why not standardise the monocoque, brakes and uprights as is done in the DTM?
Why not make F1 a GP2 already?
Dude... hate this mentality of slowing down people that are doing it better. And too bad this is happening in all areas, not only in racing.
Funny enough the same people that defend this will say racing in the past was better... when the leader put the whole grid a lap down before half of the race lol
Dude... hate this mentality of slowing down people that are doing it better. And too bad this is happening in all areas, not only in racing.
Funny enough the same people that defend this will say racing in the past was better... when the leader put the whole grid a lap down before half of the race lol
burrito
It's an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
Absolutely agree with the above. This aero hatred needs to stop. Aerodynamic grip is not an issue. The loss of aero dynamic grip when following is the issue and this issue has cropped up in F1 because the front wing now has two aims; to provide raw downforce over the front axle and to sculpt the air around the wheels and bodywork so it reaches the diffuser in a smooth, controlled flow pattern. The absence of bargeboards and a narrower front wing has forced the latter aim to become more important and so the dirty air effect is multiplied.
I think a lot of people may be surprised next year. The tyres are larger, creating a reasonably large increase in drag that is non-avoidable for teams. At the same time the diffuser will get larger and longer. At least in 2017 I see much flatter front and rear wings to reduce drag and the diffuser making up the lost downforce from the lower wing angles.
Much like when the turbo engines were banned in 1989 the teams were forced to use much skinnier wings due to the sudden loss of horsepower. Sure the engine isn't changing (and whether it should is an entirely different discussion) but the drag is changing and that will force a shift toward diffuser downforce while teams work out how to increase downforce from the wings while maintaining competitive top speeds.
I would also like to say that a return to proper sized bargeboards will mean a lot less work for the front wing in sculpting the air downstream so once again, the front wing should (hopefully) become more of a raw downforce creator than a facilitator of rear downforce.
And for those who are still ignorant of aerodynamics and cars following each other, watch the last 10 or so laps.
I think a lot of people may be surprised next year. The tyres are larger, creating a reasonably large increase in drag that is non-avoidable for teams. At the same time the diffuser will get larger and longer. At least in 2017 I see much flatter front and rear wings to reduce drag and the diffuser making up the lost downforce from the lower wing angles.
Much like when the turbo engines were banned in 1989 the teams were forced to use much skinnier wings due to the sudden loss of horsepower. Sure the engine isn't changing (and whether it should is an entirely different discussion) but the drag is changing and that will force a shift toward diffuser downforce while teams work out how to increase downforce from the wings while maintaining competitive top speeds.
I would also like to say that a return to proper sized bargeboards will mean a lot less work for the front wing in sculpting the air downstream so once again, the front wing should (hopefully) become more of a raw downforce creator than a facilitator of rear downforce.
And for those who are still ignorant of aerodynamics and cars following each other, watch the last 10 or so laps.
Agreed: the racing in the 80's, 90's and 00's were definitely not better.
Lorenzo Bonder
Wah wah.
OFF TOPIC:
WTF ROSBERG!?
WTF ROSBERG!?
Gents, rather than pollute the calendar thread with reaction, go here for Rosberggate: http://www.racedepartment.com/threads/nico-rosberg-announces-retirement.129077/
Well...Yes and no. The tracks are as much of a problem as the cars, Bernie, etc...It used to be that the tracks were flowing and encouraged speed, ( You know, the aspect of RACING that is necessary to separate it from freeway traffic). Then F1 decided that they needed to "add exitement" to the races. Yes, this is what they determined as Eccelstone and F1 felt that the flowing tracks merely led to high-speed parade laps instead of wheel to wheel racing.
Thus they redesigned many of the tracks, removing the parts that made those tracks great tracks. Tilke was the guy who did this with decreasing radius turns, sharper hairpins and other changers. The new tracks were designed using computers and metrics that "showed" Tilke where to put the best areas for passing. Worked great!
This, and cries of "safety" led to Tambourello being "tamed" with a chicane, (the track Pre-Senna flowed very nicely and allowed one to set into a rhythm, that if not broken made for a great drive), the Bus Stop at Spa being removed (another aspect that actually flowed), the abortion that is now Hockenheim, the "Mercedes Arena" at Nurburgring, the removal of the flowing left at the end of back straight at Catalunya, along with the flowing, high speed right turn that has been replaced by the chicane, and the poop-show that is what they call Shanghai.
Problem is that the series is still a parade lap of cars with no passing. They are just taking turns slower than it takes gramma to get on the 405.
The high-down force is a direct result of these tracks as the car makers are looking for ways to get through these traffic jams faster than the next guy.
Go back to the flowing track style and you will get higher speeds and less need for aero.
Safety? It could be just as safe now with the new tech that is available.
Why not make F1 a GP2 already?
Dude... hate this mentality of slowing down people that are doing it better. And too bad this is happening in all areas, not only in racing.
Funny enough the same people that defend this will say racing in the past was better... when the leader put the whole grid a lap down before half of the race lol
I don't think it is actually slowing people down. Many of us, myself included, want them to speed it up. F1 is not as fun to watch as it was back in the 70's and 80's as the cars do nothing but go and turn. Sure we get slides and such now but that is more due to the driver being an idiot than the car requiring that you slide it, or get the back end out to make a turn.
It was a parade back then, with the better teams leading the pack, but then again when was the last time we got to see a race like Monaco in 1984? While Verstappen's Brazil this year was fantastic, he was a known quantity in a fairly good car driven by a talented drive. In '84 it was a backmarker car (Toleman) driven by a driver no fan even paid attention to. Senna literally came out of nowhere that day while Verstappen did not.
When was the last time a team that is the equivalent of Toleman even came close to winning?
My point is this: If there is no change in how the races end, why not go back to the tracks of yesterday? the drivers liked them more and they were funner to watch. Stop trying to slow the cars down if nothing is being done to even out the field (which I am not a fan of myself). Stop putting crap on the cars that do nothing for overall laps times, but are there to placate misplaced sensibilities. Racing is about speed, pure and simple, whether it is an oval or a road track. No one goes to a race to watch cars go slow, save fuel, be green (really?), etc...
Just go fast.
The tracks have nothing to do with it, it's the cars that need changing. At the end of the day someone has to decide if F1 is supposed to be a competitive sport where different teams have a shot at winning or is just going to be the richest team wins every year.
I have thoughts about many of the tracks: for instance, I think Australia is always interesting because it's the first race of the season. I do wonder how it would go if it were moved back a bit.
However, to avoid writing a book, I'll just say that like everyone else I'm disappointed in the tracks that are easily surviving on the calendar. You do have to hand it to Bernie how he hoodwinked countries into building those one run tracks (Korea, India, etc) and used their existence to jack up the fees.
Hockenheim produced decent races and I really enjoy driving it on sim games. Turkey is a Tilke-drome I actually liked. Maybe I'm just thinking about Magny Cours with rose colored glasses... Meanwhile Abu Dhabi and Singapore are (admittedly pretty cool looking) parades. Baku was more interesting than I thought - though that just comes down to DRS and a really long straight.
(OK, I started writing the book... so many frustrations left... will stop now)
However, to avoid writing a book, I'll just say that like everyone else I'm disappointed in the tracks that are easily surviving on the calendar. You do have to hand it to Bernie how he hoodwinked countries into building those one run tracks (Korea, India, etc) and used their existence to jack up the fees.
Hockenheim produced decent races and I really enjoy driving it on sim games. Turkey is a Tilke-drome I actually liked. Maybe I'm just thinking about Magny Cours with rose colored glasses... Meanwhile Abu Dhabi and Singapore are (admittedly pretty cool looking) parades. Baku was more interesting than I thought - though that just comes down to DRS and a really long straight.
(OK, I started writing the book... so many frustrations left... will stop now)
