Formula One Development Proposals Revealed by Liberty Media
- Thread starter Paul Jeffrey
- Start date
Introduce Points deduction for the Constructors Championship.
The constructor with the most reliable car then wins. ez
D
Deleted member 503495
-
Deleted member 503495
So from the vague wording on tradition, I presume Ferrari will still have some benefits,
I love how "NASCAR" is an insult according to F1 fans and "F1" is an insult according to NASCAR fans
F1 take a another (rather unusual) step further in saving lives !
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/...1-race-saved-a-georgia-familys-lives-1023229/
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/...1-race-saved-a-georgia-familys-lives-1023229/
Thank the gods for V8 Supercars, closest category on the planet
Introduce Points deduction for the Constructors Championship.
The constructor with the most reliable car then wins. ez
Sorry, but that's still contributing to the negative attitude side of things.
I'm up for getting rid of penalties all together, if you expect engine part A to last 5 races and it doesn't then replace it. If it does ADD points! Lasted 2 extra races? Add even more points.. That's motivational for constructors?
As for the money cap? That's blatantly inviting dodgy dealings where money will be hidden 'naaaah honestly Guv, I bought this ECU down the market..£10! I didn't have nothing to do with making it.....'
For the drivers? It seems to me that removing any negative effects incurred due to another car HAS to be the starting point eg downforce loss. Then address 'outside' elements that affect the car, grip etc.
Then allow a more or less free hand for 'inside' elements, PU, suspension etc..
And of course the proposals are being panned by the big teams. Makes me wonder is really about. Is it the best racing series on the planet or is it an international ego trip for the elite teams? I don't mean to bahumbug all over someones favorite series, but it's painful how disconnected Formula 1's stakeholders are from each other and their fans.
Actually the longest running race 'series' is arguably the 24 Hours of Le Mans or the Indianapolis 500.
Formula 1 only kicked of in 1950, previous 'open wheel formulae' were mostly 'National' or 'Euro specific'.
A race might bear 'Grand Prix' in its title but could be for almost anything with wheels, an unfortunate habit which persists today.
FTR:
Indianapolis 500 - 1911.
Le Mans 24 Hours - 1922 (I stand to be corrected on the exact year).
Formula 1 - 1950.
FTR:
Indianapolis 500 - 1911.
Le Mans 24 Hours - 1922 (I stand to be corrected on the exact year).
Formula 1 - 1950.
Heck, even NASCAR predates Formula 1. Prohibition was repealed in 1933, so that's about when stock car racing started. Bill France Sr. started managing the Daytona Beach circuit in the late '30s and founded NASCAR in 1948.
It's 4 a.m. and I am not really awake but just had a thought. If every team on the grid was allowed to use any of their prior years cars, as long as the team was able to stuff a 1.6l V6 twin turbo in it, with battery pack and all other current hybrid era junk, and then also stick a halo on it, then they could run that car. So for example you could have a Ferrari 312 up against an FW14B. If somebody is able to buy the remains of Caterham and then go and find all the Brabham stuff and rebrand it, then you could have the fancar up against the Tyrell 6 wheel. See? Does that not make more sense than what we are now looking at? Purists will scream with delight. Newcomers will be aghast at the performance differences. Keep the silly engine regs but you can only utilize what you have already developed and have data on. That's all the time I'm willing to put into this absurd theory.
DND
Stay Safe, Healthy and be Kind - Stop Hate
Today F1 announced that teams could not come to an agreement on changes to improve overtaking neither this or the following year after the FIA called for an emergency meeting to address after the first round of 2018.
I would maintain that F1 is a clown show, but I think its worse than that. Pathetic
I would maintain that F1 is a clown show, but I think its worse than that. Pathetic
Liberty have robbed us, the fans. I've watched all my life and in my 40s, but from 2019 UK loses all live events...yeye wealthy people can PAY PER VIEW, but real people can not throw away good money.
Just charge a premium on 1 of the 5 million commercials plastered around, and keep it on terrestrial tv for the masses, and new generations to be exposed. I remember the days when BBC2 had late highlights, luckily got me watching as my dad liked it, but a live event in local daylight hours is the way to go. Liberty are an ass...as was the greedy git who's name I won't blaspheme haha
Just charge a premium on 1 of the 5 million commercials plastered around, and keep it on terrestrial tv for the masses, and new generations to be exposed. I remember the days when BBC2 had late highlights, luckily got me watching as my dad liked it, but a live event in local daylight hours is the way to go. Liberty are an ass...as was the greedy git who's name I won't blaspheme haha
It's very weird, top 3 teams want things to continue as it is even if 2 of them always get their butts kicked by the other one.
Liberty is probably locked by bad deals done by previous admin and making big changes when these teams dont want probably means huge loss
And Lowndes pulled of a terrific win and pole in Tasmania today.Thank the gods for V8 Supercars, closest category on the planet
DND
Stay Safe, Healthy and be Kind - Stop Hate
I had a draft in the Rant Thread and after a few hours decided not to Post, but essentially it was in regards to the NFL and how much money is involved with the TV contracts where actual fannies in the seats at the event isn't required for owner's to be profitable. In short the owner's, or in this case Liberty...or the former 'king of F1' could not give a rodent's rear end what I or any other fan thinks.
Imagine you are the head of a big team.
A proposal to limit overall budget means you have to fire 20% of your staff. You have a responsibility to your employees. Even if not voluntarily, some countries don't even allow you staff reductions like that without reasonable cause (such as financial difficulties). And for what? Development shifts to external suppliers supplying multiple teams, who then do development with the same number of employees but make inferior parts.
Part sharing. As Toto pointed out. A gearbox isn't just the gears. The casing can be lighter (carbon fiber) or heavier (aluminium). Everybody who read Adrian Newey's book (you should) knows that a big part of aerodynamic work is to reshape the gearbox to get material out of the way of aero. And if you have standard gearboxes from one supplier, what do you say to the team with the strongest engine when they have 13 gearbox DNFs in a season while the teams with the wimpy engines have 3?
Standard brakes. What do you do on brake failure? The team isn't confident that it won't happen again. They are not allowed to improve the brakes, or change them in a way that they are easier to monitor. The only opinion is to refuse to race? We know how that goes. Either somebody dies or a whole race is ruined such as the US race when one tire vendor screwed up.
This probably means FIA does whatever it wants before the April 30 deadline to publish rules for 2019 the easy way.
That's not good. There is an interesting bit mentioned on Sky News yesterday, the teams were all, everybody, against limitations on front wing complexity. Many of us here were thinking along the same lines. You need to give teams who are good at aero something to tinker with while the engine-focused teams have lots of things to tinker with on the engine. And the front wing generally makes airflow smoother and more linear (to make it not bounce off all the junk in the back of the car). The complex wings are probably improving airflow for the car behind, not damaging it. And aero work is cheap, and team-local.
If there is no agreement and FIA just published their half-baken ideas they went in with you probably have a bunch of "cost-saving" measures that save no cost and a bunch of overtaking changes that backfire.
And this is dangerous. Always remember the 1993 to 1994 changes. I don't know about you, but in my opinion the root cause of the 1994 troubles was that active suspension forbidden on a timeframe that was too short for the teams to re-develop their aero packages. Some teams had aero packages that worked great on a certain ride height, and that ride height was maintained by the active suspension. They had needed more time to make those packages robust in the face of changing ride height. Because neither computational flow analysis nor wind tunnels could at the time simulate conditions such as riding one side on a curb for a fraction of a second (which IMHO is how Senna died).
Steve Worrell
Premium
You know F1 isn't that bad.
