Chris
Premium
I think you're thinking of Max Mosely?
Debate: Is Formula One Heading in the Right Direction?
- Thread starter Chris
- Start date
Flammenjc
hydr.eSport
The biggest irony of road relevance is that, the only thing an F1 car has in common with a road car, was that it has 4 round wheels. Everything else about the car is different, even the steering wheel, shape and size of tyres, etc etc.
They are just being blind dickheads.
Maybe what they should do, is give a power/weight ratio that they have to abide by, given a rough wheelbase and car dimension that they have to follow and then let them do whatever the **** they want to do. .
So you don't think that technological inventions and advancements within F1 trickles down to road going cars? Things like ABS and Traction Control was developed by racing and are now standard on most cars. How to squeeze out the most out of every ounce of fuel is another area where road going cars benefit from racing.
The 2015 racing was pretty dire, about the same as 2013 & 2014.
the tyres are by far the biggest problem the sport has - not downforce. For example, lotus 79 had much more downforce than the 2015 cars, yet the racing was superb in those days. Maybe change the front wings a bit, but don't reduce rear wing downforce.
The drivers can't follow close now, because they have to manage tyre even under ideal conditions -- add in some turbulence and they wear out in minutes. If you can't follow close it all becomes a dire procession.
2017 changes - sounds a bit better than the current farce to be honest.
the tyres are by far the biggest problem the sport has - not downforce. For example, lotus 79 had much more downforce than the 2015 cars, yet the racing was superb in those days. Maybe change the front wings a bit, but don't reduce rear wing downforce.
The drivers can't follow close now, because they have to manage tyre even under ideal conditions -- add in some turbulence and they wear out in minutes. If you can't follow close it all becomes a dire procession.
2017 changes - sounds a bit better than the current farce to be honest.
The Lotus 79 used a ground effect system, meaning that there wouldn't be the issue of dirty air, which is the huge flaw with the current aerodynamic package. Ground effect can produce more aero, increasing the lap time.
Of course it did, totally in favour of bringing it back.
If GE is out of the question, consider late 80s & early 90s cars -- still tons of downforce (maybe more than today's who knows), in the days of senna, mansell, prost the cars had big downforce, but the racing was still much better than 2015. In any case, the problem can't really be the downforce.
problem must be these tyres.
If GE is out of the question, consider late 80s & early 90s cars -- still tons of downforce (maybe more than today's who knows), in the days of senna, mansell, prost the cars had big downforce, but the racing was still much better than 2015. In any case, the problem can't really be the downforce.
problem must be these tyres.
Last edited:
The problem is the downforce though. No one can attack as the aero package is creating too much drag and dirty air and it is causing the tyres to overheat, meaning racing is impossible. The tyres are fine in my opinion
To make the cars faster is not a big deal at all.
Remove fuel flow limit, bigger tyres, wider cars (I'm not happy until they are again 2,20m), wider wings, flat underground or even ground effect, bigger diffusors, bigger engines, etc...
Here are some interesting ideas, but some would drastically change F1 in a way one could think it's no longer F1.
Refueling would only make things worse, as tactics would be even more determining the race results. However, allowing hard racing over the whole race distance would make it also more interesting, as drivers actually had to overtake on tracks.
The pit communications wouldn't really be a problem if it wouldn't be broadcasted in TV, a matter that would instantly die...
The tyres are complete crap. As I said with refueling, they set strategies into focus and not racing over the race distance.
If the cars would cause more slipstream, it could help aiding overtaking in the sense of a "natural DRS", just taking the dependency away from the front wings would conter the typical traction loss when driving in slipstream. This could easily be helped with more mechanical grip (tyres, wider cars) and easing aero regulations for other areas of the cars.
When people plea for better racing and want more tactical games in the same sentence, I could just palm my face...
Remove fuel flow limit, bigger tyres, wider cars (I'm not happy until they are again 2,20m), wider wings, flat underground or even ground effect, bigger diffusors, bigger engines, etc...
Here are some interesting ideas, but some would drastically change F1 in a way one could think it's no longer F1.
Refueling would only make things worse, as tactics would be even more determining the race results. However, allowing hard racing over the whole race distance would make it also more interesting, as drivers actually had to overtake on tracks.
The pit communications wouldn't really be a problem if it wouldn't be broadcasted in TV, a matter that would instantly die...
The tyres are complete crap. As I said with refueling, they set strategies into focus and not racing over the race distance.
If the cars would cause more slipstream, it could help aiding overtaking in the sense of a "natural DRS", just taking the dependency away from the front wings would conter the typical traction loss when driving in slipstream. This could easily be helped with more mechanical grip (tyres, wider cars) and easing aero regulations for other areas of the cars.
When people plea for better racing and want more tactical games in the same sentence, I could just palm my face...
Given up on F1, its Boring is the right word , put any of the so called top 5 drivers in the mercedes and their win, also what really annoys me about f1 its for the rich drivers , i have been around the racing game for a while to know many youngsters with much better potential than most of the drivers in today's F1 who just dont get the funds to continue, or lucky break. Its who can take or bring the money to the teams, their are way too many drivers holding places in the cars due to that reason, and the talent just gets overlooked well down the line. They say Karting is cheap entry into racing, what bull! to be at the level of competition and to be seen you could be looking at 15,000 to 20,000 a year,some even more!, For me to bring the excitement back into F1 you have to look at the grass roots of bringing in the talent on a budget that most people could afford that way we shouldn't have to put up with the same old drivers year after year JUST SWAPPING CARS!
I used to watch F1 every time it was on , and like a few on here i ve only watched about three this year , Moto gp has now become my go too for the rushhhhhhhhhhh.
Its worth f1 looking at moto gp seeing how nearly every race has you on the edge of your seat, there are at least 5 bikes that can get the win, if a Biker doesn't perform that well they dont hang about on replacing him unlike F1 where the money has a bigger say!. In F1 its been down to the two mercedes over the last two years then before that redbull , it got to get more equal , Cars need to get more equal. Also the bbc commentators have to go !!! Bring back Murray!
I used to watch F1 every time it was on , and like a few on here i ve only watched about three this year , Moto gp has now become my go too for the rushhhhhhhhhhh.
Its worth f1 looking at moto gp seeing how nearly every race has you on the edge of your seat, there are at least 5 bikes that can get the win, if a Biker doesn't perform that well they dont hang about on replacing him unlike F1 where the money has a bigger say!. In F1 its been down to the two mercedes over the last two years then before that redbull , it got to get more equal , Cars need to get more equal. Also the bbc commentators have to go !!! Bring back Murray!
Last edited:
Flammenjc
hydr.eSport
Yea, but trickle down isn't whats happening is it? The case would be trickle UP. They are manufacturing the sport to BE road relevant, when it never has, never was, and never will be. What you are saying is that ABC and TCS came FROM racing. Yes, but not the other way, F1 cars aren't actively using features of a road car, designed for comfort and practicality to go racing with. Next we'll see F1 cars with doors and stereo systems, climate control and a passenger. Economy driving was already a part of driving on the public road, why should it be forced on real racing to fake a connection? The reason they 'save fuel' isn't for economy reasons, it's because the rules make it that way. If they had the choice they'd probably go with the extra weight and just cane it, as it should be done.
The cars have gigantic wings and slick tyres, they are made entirely of carbon fibre and only seat one human in it, who basically lies down in a tailor moulded seat, they have less weight than a road car and drive at least 4 times the speed limit. They're not relevant to road driving. If a road car company wants to develop an F1 car for the road, fine, but F1 shouldn't be dumbing down F1 to make it more like a road car.
Did anyone who watched F1, in its entire history care that an F1 car was basically another world apart from their road car? No, if anything, it adds to the allure of it.
I disagree on this, however it should all be down to the driver to call the pit stop, what tyres to change, how much fuel to add etc.
Downforce itself is not evil, and it's not always the death of racing. At this point LMP1 and Indycar have probably left F1 downforce levels in the past, but yet both are more racy than what you see in F1, and have seen since the mid to late 90s. How it's generated and how it proportions to the mechanical grip available is equally important to just "too much downforce".
(also worth noting, the Indycar oval kit produces way less downforce, yet it's more sensitive to dirty air than the road course package - again, downforce doesn't mean you can't race)
IMO, the real culprit of the staleness of F1 is the fact everything has become too good - except the tires - and in particular, the brakes. These cars weigh nothing, have a heck of a lot of drag, generate significant levels of downforce, nearly indestructibly gearboxes that can be mashed like it's one of our sims and the best braking systems on a car you can find.
The cars now simply put get into the corner - to the apex - far too quickly for racing to actually occur. No more can a daring driver "send one up the inside" in a ballsy pass, because that just ends up with the overtaking driver spearing the car he's passing. There is almost no entry speed vs exit speed battles, there is no "he got a poor run out of the corner so I'm going to take the spot back in the next corner" because of it. A pass either happens in an instant, ends in a Maldonado or never happens in the first place.
Or like one of the other guys said about the early 90s / late 80s cars - more downforce, more racing. Why? Probably because brake zones were still actually a thing thanks to garbage tires and garbage brakes.
Add 150 lbs to the cars, bring back the underbody tunnels, remove the fuel flow limit and switch to steel brakes. Presto.
Last edited:
No more downforce in Lotus 79. That car gains downforce of diference of pression of the air up and down of the car, the same today with the diffusers. But the ground effect cars sometimes dont have front wing, because the effect was more intense on front of the car that on the rear. And the air was more clean.
For the "dear" FIA:
-Will you prevent the abusing of track limits? Here is the solution:
The gravel, and improves security (the car will down the speed in crashes, but can't be controlled).
-Will you improve the spectacle, with great overtakings and show the drivers skills? Maintain forever in the championship Monza, Spa-Francorchamps, Suzuka, Interlagos, Monaco, and don't make tracks in countries like Azerbajan (with 0% racing and car culture, except is a Chevrolet LoL, and is a country without any protection to the human rights, like Bahrein and Arab Emirates), and fire up Hermann Tilke, and contract an a new-John Hugenholtz, please.
This are racing tracks (the good tracks before mentioned I don't show pictures):
Zandvoort (designed by Hugenholtz in the 40s, and this is the same designer that the Suzuka and Jarama track, for example).
Kyalami (now, under a new remodelation, that isn't any of the picture).
Designed by Hugenholtz, now are under modifications in the track limits, paddock and the tower (this last finished), but the layout is the same.
Montjuich track (I live at 30km from Barcelona, at Terrassa city, but my grandad assisted in the 60s and 70s to the F1 and motorcycle races as spectator. I passed and touched the road that was the racetrack when I assisted to Montjuich at the exposition congress).
And this, isn't good tracks:
A f1-train exhibition.
The permanent part is good, but the urban...
A shi*ty layout.
And other tracks, is Sepang, Abu Dhabi and Bahrein.
-Don't put an engine and aero several restrictions, because if a engine had bad performance, if you limit the development, the car with that engine will go bad ever. Like Mclaren.
An unlimited engine costs and number of engines used in a season will improve the innovation and spectacle. The same for the use of wind tunnel.
-No eco-cars and hybrid tech: this tech in endurance (le mans 24h, for example), are good , but in a f1, only increases the weight of cars, and decreases the security (for example, the KERS incident in 2009 pre-season with the BMW-Sauber mechanic, or the 2015 pre-season Alonso's incident), and a F1 race isn't for "car destroyers".
More engine liberty: if you only put a max engine capacity, and forbid some dangerous materials (like the berillium), and all layouts can be used, the spectacle will increase. For example, if Manor can't use a v10/v12/v8 3.0l naturally aspirated engines, why can't use a 1.6 turbo v6 engine (without hybrid part in all engines, remember)? A v10/v12 can reach probably high top speeds, but the v6 turbo or the v8 n/a can need minor fuel, and can improve the spectacle.
-The refuel returning (This was approved at least, or no?).
-Will you prevent the abusing of track limits? Here is the solution:
The gravel, and improves security (the car will down the speed in crashes, but can't be controlled).
-Will you improve the spectacle, with great overtakings and show the drivers skills? Maintain forever in the championship Monza, Spa-Francorchamps, Suzuka, Interlagos, Monaco, and don't make tracks in countries like Azerbajan (with 0% racing and car culture, except is a Chevrolet LoL, and is a country without any protection to the human rights, like Bahrein and Arab Emirates), and fire up Hermann Tilke, and contract an a new-John Hugenholtz, please.
This are racing tracks (the good tracks before mentioned I don't show pictures):
And this, isn't good tracks:
And other tracks, is Sepang, Abu Dhabi and Bahrein.
-Don't put an engine and aero several restrictions, because if a engine had bad performance, if you limit the development, the car with that engine will go bad ever. Like Mclaren.
An unlimited engine costs and number of engines used in a season will improve the innovation and spectacle. The same for the use of wind tunnel.
-No eco-cars and hybrid tech: this tech in endurance (le mans 24h, for example), are good , but in a f1, only increases the weight of cars, and decreases the security (for example, the KERS incident in 2009 pre-season with the BMW-Sauber mechanic, or the 2015 pre-season Alonso's incident), and a F1 race isn't for "car destroyers".
More engine liberty: if you only put a max engine capacity, and forbid some dangerous materials (like the berillium), and all layouts can be used, the spectacle will increase. For example, if Manor can't use a v10/v12/v8 3.0l naturally aspirated engines, why can't use a 1.6 turbo v6 engine (without hybrid part in all engines, remember)? A v10/v12 can reach probably high top speeds, but the v6 turbo or the v8 n/a can need minor fuel, and can improve the spectacle.
-The refuel returning (This was approved at least, or no?).
Last edited:
Clearly F1 is heading the wrong way and it seems it will not change in the coming years.
FIA world motor sport council just gave more mandate to Bernie and Todt to "solve urgent problems in F1"
Seriously ?
I am watching F1, Indycar, WEC, ELMS and MotoGP.
F1 is by far the most boring one. Once first lap completed (sometimes even first corner passed), you can switch off the TV, you know who is the winner.
Here are my thoughts:
- All the rules to manage cost have miserably failed. Why ? Because it is in the nature of this sport to spend hundred of millions to be on top. No matter what saving is intended, team will spend their money elsewhere.
- The engine and gearbox limit is fine for the sake of reliability but not for the sake of cost cutting.
- The penalty system is just madness:
How on earth can you give a 65 place grid penalty to a driver because his engine failed ??? Most of the time it is not his fault, so the driver should not get penalized, only the team. To effectively penalize the team, you can take points out of the manufacturer championship or put in place financial penalties.
All the penalties for just racing a bit aggressively... are ruining the fun. I mean I don't watch F1 to see crashes but just let the drivers race each other. Dangerous moves needs to be punished for sure (changing line in the breaking area when being passed is forbidden and yet we see many young drivers do it and never get penalized whereas the are penalized for aggressive racing (e.g. Max Verstappen in Abu Dhabi).
- get rid of the bloody f****g radio. I can't stand to here those whiners constantly complaining ("too much rain", "not enough this", "too many that", "He didn't give me enough space") Just shut up and drive !
- Racing: no comments, just watch:
At Spa, start at 1:50
Here again at silverstone (it went on for several laps in a row, I almost died watching this) :
Wet track ?? : at Fuji
- Tyres: F1 is all about that nowadays: tyre economy... unbelievable (and F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of the sport...). it's like saying to Usain Bolt on a 100m : "save energy...
- rules: In F1 there are so complex. Every new design or invention is immediately banned, progress is not allowed. It is only a question of areodynamics (that destroy racing by the way)
The WEC rules on the other hand for the LMP1, made by the ACO are totally open. You have a quantity of energy available, you are free to develop any power plant that gives you this quantity of energy. The Audi as a big Diesel engine + a flywheel. The Porsche as a very small petrol engine (2l V4) + a battery pack. Yet their performance is similar and they are able to race each other quite effectively.
In F1, to have good conscience, they went to the crappy so called hybrid engine... but they did not allow engine manufacturer to develop these engines. Because in the end, the F1 leaders didn't wanted this form of progress, they were against it right from the start (just see the recent discussion about the cheap F1 engine). Just take all the buzz around the engine sound... yes its crappy so what? Look (hear) at the audi and the porsche in WEC, the diesel hasve nearly no sound (main sound from the audi is aerodynamic) and the porsche one is quite weird. Is the racing less interesting due to that ? I don't think so.
- qualification format: it must change. Those Q 123 are just messing up with the logic of high speed racing. How a Sebastien Vettel can start from the back of the grid for a strategy error in qualy ? OK he did an awesome race to finish 4th. I wonder what would have been his race if he started third? maybe he would have put some trouble in the touristic race of the mercedes...
- the whole organization of F1 is the basis of the crisis: the rule book should be written by people having no financial interest other than the success of the sport and that have a real technical knowledge of what will do a good race car. Teams and manufacturer should not have their words in the rules.
- Safety: that's one positive thing: safety has been dramatically improved other the last 20 years (since Ayrton Senna's death). But it could/should be again improved. and the same old people against progress appears. Closed cockpit: some says "it wouldn't be F1 anymore".
Oone thing is sure: Justin Wilson would still be there, I don't know if it would have saved Jules Bianchi, Massa is ultra lucky to have survived.
In LMP1, not so long ago, they had open cockpit. They all moved to closed one some year ago. It probably saved Alan McNish from his huge crash in Le Mans 2011. LMP2 will be all closed cockpit in the coming years as well. It is just a question of willingness.
-Tracks: modern tracks are soooo boring...
I could go on or hours... unfortunately, reading all the previous post, it seems the community has bright ideas. the F1 big bosses surely thought about it as well but are not willing to put them in place because although it is for the interest of the sport, it doesn't fit their economical/financial agenda.
FIA world motor sport council just gave more mandate to Bernie and Todt to "solve urgent problems in F1"
Seriously ?I am watching F1, Indycar, WEC, ELMS and MotoGP.
F1 is by far the most boring one. Once first lap completed (sometimes even first corner passed), you can switch off the TV, you know who is the winner.
Here are my thoughts:
- All the rules to manage cost have miserably failed. Why ? Because it is in the nature of this sport to spend hundred of millions to be on top. No matter what saving is intended, team will spend their money elsewhere.
- The engine and gearbox limit is fine for the sake of reliability but not for the sake of cost cutting.
- The penalty system is just madness:
How on earth can you give a 65 place grid penalty to a driver because his engine failed ??? Most of the time it is not his fault, so the driver should not get penalized, only the team. To effectively penalize the team, you can take points out of the manufacturer championship or put in place financial penalties.
All the penalties for just racing a bit aggressively... are ruining the fun. I mean I don't watch F1 to see crashes but just let the drivers race each other. Dangerous moves needs to be punished for sure (changing line in the breaking area when being passed is forbidden and yet we see many young drivers do it and never get penalized whereas the are penalized for aggressive racing (e.g. Max Verstappen in Abu Dhabi).
- get rid of the bloody f****g radio. I can't stand to here those whiners constantly complaining ("too much rain", "not enough this", "too many that", "He didn't give me enough space") Just shut up and drive !
- Racing: no comments, just watch:
At Spa, start at 1:50
- rules: In F1 there are so complex. Every new design or invention is immediately banned, progress is not allowed. It is only a question of areodynamics (that destroy racing by the way)
The WEC rules on the other hand for the LMP1, made by the ACO are totally open. You have a quantity of energy available, you are free to develop any power plant that gives you this quantity of energy. The Audi as a big Diesel engine + a flywheel. The Porsche as a very small petrol engine (2l V4) + a battery pack. Yet their performance is similar and they are able to race each other quite effectively.
In F1, to have good conscience, they went to the crappy so called hybrid engine... but they did not allow engine manufacturer to develop these engines. Because in the end, the F1 leaders didn't wanted this form of progress, they were against it right from the start (just see the recent discussion about the cheap F1 engine). Just take all the buzz around the engine sound... yes its crappy so what? Look (hear) at the audi and the porsche in WEC, the diesel hasve nearly no sound (main sound from the audi is aerodynamic) and the porsche one is quite weird. Is the racing less interesting due to that ? I don't think so.
- qualification format: it must change. Those Q 123 are just messing up with the logic of high speed racing. How a Sebastien Vettel can start from the back of the grid for a strategy error in qualy ? OK he did an awesome race to finish 4th. I wonder what would have been his race if he started third? maybe he would have put some trouble in the touristic race of the mercedes...
- the whole organization of F1 is the basis of the crisis: the rule book should be written by people having no financial interest other than the success of the sport and that have a real technical knowledge of what will do a good race car. Teams and manufacturer should not have their words in the rules.
- Safety: that's one positive thing: safety has been dramatically improved other the last 20 years (since Ayrton Senna's death). But it could/should be again improved. and the same old people against progress appears. Closed cockpit: some says "it wouldn't be F1 anymore".
Oone thing is sure: Justin Wilson would still be there, I don't know if it would have saved Jules Bianchi, Massa is ultra lucky to have survived.
In LMP1, not so long ago, they had open cockpit. They all moved to closed one some year ago. It probably saved Alan McNish from his huge crash in Le Mans 2011. LMP2 will be all closed cockpit in the coming years as well. It is just a question of willingness.
-Tracks: modern tracks are soooo boring...
I could go on or hours... unfortunately, reading all the previous post, it seems the community has bright ideas. the F1 big bosses surely thought about it as well but are not willing to put them in place because although it is for the interest of the sport, it doesn't fit their economical/financial agenda.
Last edited:
Very good points all. Down-force is not the issue. In fact, in the "slow-speed" corners (which seem to be multiplying unfortunately), things like down-force are irrelevant if you want to simply "line up" the driver ahead and then pass on the straight. It might be said, in that case, that down-force is a hindrance to passing, but not because it's outlawed.
The toughest of all problems will not be F1, but the fans. They are really in control and the only reason F1 is changing. Especially the newer ones (as a generalization). People have very distorted perceptions of what "racing" really is and was. The modern F1 fan has virtually no slipstream knowledge and thus no real reference for things like drafting. Your average NASCAR fan knows much more about this. IndyCar is the only series in the world that races two separate cars on ovals and then road courses and street courses. F1 might want to humble itself and ask for help there.
So, therefore (and to piggy-back on your point), when a move like Raikonen made on Bottas in Russia is tried, fans go apoplectic, but seasoned racers get it entirely. In fact, I didn't hear nary a thing from anyone except the media (this includes you Coulthard). What it really was -- was a classic racing move that is hard-wired into most any driver's psyche. It's just that these cars can't be forced into compliance. Many have tired, and Raikonnen is not the only example. In fact, when Bottas did the same thing to him, my respect for Bottas shot up...becasue he gets it, and said "okay, if that's how you want it...." - even if its a fool's errand. Well, YES, that's how he wants it!
But in essence, if the modern F1 cars didn't have ungodly brakes (I mean, really...did we need to employ the motor to assist in braking along with the aero drag and the brakes themselves
) and insane mechanical grip, at the *expense* of down-force, things would open up, as the teams would naturally sort the passing issue if they only could, and tire options were more, dare I say it, like IndyCar, where they also have soft and hard, but they don't "fall off" after 2.5 laps and do not explode. Believe it or not, down-force can actually help preserve tires since it helps "plant" the car to the ground. But the passing difficulty and the absurd track boundaries issue really highlight why the fans of F1 need a re-orientation. In fact, it may be that they just don't want to be reset, since they have been conditioned to hate oval racing, and to micromanage bold but risky moves in the context of the perfect world. Sad really. Closed cockpits are just a placebo. Most drivers are scared to death of these things. Fire, Visibility, Smoke, Heat etc. But many will race regardless. As it has always been and always will be.
Last edited:
I believe so.
I hope with the 2017 formula overhaul, they will close the cockpits.
I hope with the 2017 formula overhaul, they will close the cockpits.
The tracks are really dull. I mean REALLY dull.
This is one of the main problems of modern F1. They parade around the world looking for a classic venue to ruin. Castrate it with acres of tarmac run off. Get rid of all the high speed corners. Create some nasty low speed section with a few hairpins. Done.
The cars themselves, aero is the main problem, well dirty air really. Moving most of the aero beneath the car would be a massive step forward.
Engines. I personally would love to see some kind of open formula, but with some kind of restrictions, a bit like GT3 or the WEC. You want a V12, sure. V10, no problem. Turbo V6, go or it, on your way pal. Supercharged V8, yes sir. Etc.
This is one of the main problems of modern F1. They parade around the world looking for a classic venue to ruin. Castrate it with acres of tarmac run off. Get rid of all the high speed corners. Create some nasty low speed section with a few hairpins. Done.
The cars themselves, aero is the main problem, well dirty air really. Moving most of the aero beneath the car would be a massive step forward.
Engines. I personally would love to see some kind of open formula, but with some kind of restrictions, a bit like GT3 or the WEC. You want a V12, sure. V10, no problem. Turbo V6, go or it, on your way pal. Supercharged V8, yes sir. Etc.
