planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 7:31 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:12 am
Posts: 31
This year has been quite close at the start of the season in terms of how competitive each team have been.
The FIA or teams should maintain this, as for me it makes F1 more interesting. Are there any ideas on what can be done to bunch the teams together further?

For example for Q1 the 7 cars knocked out could be able to change their setup for a race setup and therefore improve the competition between the backmarkers and the midfield as the backmarkers could then focus on a pure qualifying set up without compromising their race set up. This could perhaps close the gap in qualifying and therefore cause more shocks in Q1. What do you guys think?

Post any other ideas of improve the field in terms of competition. This is my first thread so please be kind :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:35 am
Posts: 778
interesting idea.

i do think they need to tweek qualifying because Q1 is always the same bottom 6 plus one special guest (usually Vergne)

and Q3, there can be 3 guys that are just happy to be there and make no effort to do a timed lap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:12 pm
Posts: 930
Yeah i actually love a competition where there's an uncertainty. As a supporter of mid-field team, i would love to see them doing well fighting at the front. Now everything is back to normal where we can predict the outcome.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 4102
Location: Belgium
If uncertainty is what makes F1 "more interesting", the FIA could organise a lottery every race, just to determine the starting order.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:12 pm
Posts: 930
It is more like how teams will cope with the changing regulation, as well as strategy. It is not lottery, it is who can be the best under certain situation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 4008
While it is an interesting idea, I don't agree with this bunching the teams artificially thing.

Teams have worked their asses off to get any advantage they have, that's the crux of F1. If one or more teams get ahead because they've done a better job (add here more money/resources), then fine, let the others catch up. Don't artificially bunch them, like Nascar does with the flags.

It is the grand idea of F1 to promote innovation within a set of rules; then taking everything back by cancelling any advantage that these innovations have is just non-sensical

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 2679
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
SchumieRules wrote:
While it is an interesting idea, I don't agree with this bunching the teams artificially thing.

Teams have worked their asses off to get any advantage they have, that's the crux of F1. If one or more teams get ahead because they've done a better job (add here more money/resources), then fine, let the others catch up. Don't artificially bunch them, like Nascar does with the flags.

It is the grand idea of F1 to promote innovation within a set of rules; then taking everything back by cancelling any advantage that these innovations have is just non-sensical

:thumbup:

_________________
I went skating on your name,
And by tracing it twice,
I fell through the ice,
of Alice


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:41 pm
Posts: 468
Location: Royal Wootton Bassett
1. Abolish all tyre restrictions. Let teams use whatever tyres they want in whchever manner. Not only will this provide more competition, every team will be trying to outguess the others on what is best for a given race.

2. Rules about techinical innovations should be more flexible and do away with fixed 'not allowed' lists. Some items may still be banned; but if a team comes up with a new innovation, they should have the opportunity to demonstrate its use to the officialdom before being allowed but they should not simply ban an innovation because other teams do not have it.

3. With the exception of Monaco, other tracks should have minimum width to make overtaking possible but not easy.

5. Turbo engines might make it more competitive. At least the races thATI saw in the turbo era were more competitive.

_________________
Vettel / Raikkonen / Button


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:12 am
Posts: 31
SchumieRules wrote:
Teams have worked their asses off to get any advantage they have, that's the crux of F1. If one or more teams get ahead because they've done a better job (add here more money/resources), then fine, let the others catch up. Don't artificially bunch them, like Nascar does with the flags.

It is the grand idea of F1 to promote innovation within a set of rules; then taking everything back by cancelling any advantage that these innovations have is just non-sensical
[/quote]

Fair enough but I'm not saying we should neutralise the field entirely. For example I would still expect the top 3 constructors to remain in the top 3 just make the field tighter and a little bit less predictable (although not random or lottery) but enough so that perhaps a good driver in a lesser car might be able to outperform an average driver in a marginally better car. Innovation can still exist and perhaps the philosophies of the cars can be different for example Williams cars this year have had good traction and the Sauber has been easy on its tyres and fast on high speed corners. With different characteristics it will produce different results at different tracks and therefore be competitive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 4008
CalMac wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
Teams have worked their asses off to get any advantage they have, that's the crux of F1. If one or more teams get ahead because they've done a better job (add here more money/resources), then fine, let the others catch up. Don't artificially bunch them, like Nascar does with the flags.

It is the grand idea of F1 to promote innovation within a set of rules; then taking everything back by cancelling any advantage that these innovations have is just non-sensical


Fair enough but I'm not saying we should neutralise the field entirely. For example I would still expect the top 3 constructors to remain in the top 3 just make the field tighter and a little bit less predictable (although not random or lottery) but enough so that perhaps a good driver in a lesser car might be able to outperform an average driver in a marginally better car. Innovation can still exist and perhaps the philosophies of the cars can be different for example Williams cars this year have had good traction and the Sauber has been easy on its tyres and fast on high speed corners. With different characteristics it will produce different results at different tracks and therefore be competitive.


The whole idea I object to is the "interfering with". I like the idea you put forth, but how is it fair that half the field gets help?

Now slower cars have found their way around faster cars in the past, without any help. A good driver in a midfield car HAS (in many cases) passed a driver in a better car. So why interfere there?

There are things done to ensure the field doesn't spread too much, the 107% rule for example or common ECU units in the cars etc. But - as Fiki pointed above - if you want unpredictability then try lottery. This is sport and in sport the best should prevail and be rewarded. Not disadvantaged by artificial means.

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:55 pm
Posts: 333
The competition is good as it is. The structuring of the events need no changing imo, maybe bringing the teams together through budget caps or reducing downforce/braking levels would be a good thing, but the fundamental way races are run is fine.

The problem is most fans' perception is biased by the fact that there are only 20 events a year, relatively few compared to any other sport, so they want every single one to be a dramatic unpredictable overtaking fest. Look at almost any other top level sport, football rugby cricket or whatever, and I bet that a higher proportion of the games/events are predictable or subpar on the action level for that given sport, compared to current F1 races.

Like with overtaking, the rarity of an upset heightens the emotion when it does happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:12 am
Posts: 31
SchumieRules wrote:
CalMac wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
Teams have worked their asses off to get any advantage they have, that's the crux of F1. If one or more teams get ahead because they've done a better job (add here more money/resources), then fine, let the others catch up. Don't artificially bunch them, like Nascar does with the flags.

It is the grand idea of F1 to promote innovation within a set of rules; then taking everything back by cancelling any advantage that these innovations have is just non-sensical


Fair enough but I'm not saying we should neutralise the field entirely. For example I would still expect the top 3 constructors to remain in the top 3 just make the field tighter and a little bit less predictable (although not random or lottery) but enough so that perhaps a good driver in a lesser car might be able to outperform an average driver in a marginally better car. Innovation can still exist and perhaps the philosophies of the cars can be different for example Williams cars this year have had good traction and the Sauber has been easy on its tyres and fast on high speed corners. With different characteristics it will produce different results at different tracks and therefore be competitive.


The whole idea I object to is the "interfering with". I like the idea you put forth, but how is it fair that half the field gets help?

Now slower cars have found their way around faster cars in the past, without any help. A good driver in a midfield car HAS (in many cases) passed a driver in a better car. So why interfere there?

There are things done to ensure the field doesn't spread too much, the 107% rule for example or common ECU units in the cars etc. But - as Fiki pointed above - if you want unpredictability then try lottery. This is sport and in sport the best should prevail and be rewarded. Not disadvantaged by artificial means.


My argument isn't for a HRT to win a race randomly or unpredictably but to ensure the field doesn't spread too much. the 107% rule to me is itself too large a gap as proven over the last two years since being brought back, the best should be able to deal with more competition as it highlights how good they actually are. Artificial means of slowing down cars have been part of the FIA's rule changes for many a year, I mean why do the top 10 have to start on their qualifying tyres then? Why do we have DRS? etc

My argument isn't to drop an anchor on a Red Bull to try and slow it down. Its to narrow the difference between and increase competition between all the teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 4008
CalMac wrote:

My argument isn't for a HRT to win a race randomly or unpredictably but to insure the field doesn't spread too much. the 107% rule to me is itself too large a gap as proven over the last two years since being brought back, the best should be able to deal with more competition as it highlights how good they actually are. Artificial means of slowing down cars have been part of the FIA's rule changes for many a year, I mean why do the top 10 have to start on their qualifying tyres then? Why do we have DRS? etc

My argument isn't to drop an anchor on a Red Bull to try and slow it down. Its to narrow the difference between and increase competition between all the teams.


Yes I know what you mean. But the spread of the field itself shows how good a job a team has done. The FIA has introduced "levelling the field" rules, that's true, but these were mostly introduced when a team made a run with it too easily and for a long period. Some of these rules are also something that many people object with, myself included. Also, the middle teams do have the chance to catch the big teams, Sauber are on the verge of overtaking Mercedes this year.

It is the general idea that I'm trying to explain. You have a product that is based on things NOT being equal. Otherwise it would be a stock series. Granted you are not trying to level the field completely, but where is the line drawn? I think there are enough rules and regulations to ensure some kind of equality in the field (with artificial overtaking being allowed at the moment), taking more steps would spoil it further for me.

I am talking about myself here, not trying to force my opinion to you by the way. I am sure there others that feel this way though

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:35 am
Posts: 778
the closest season for the team i can remember was before the 3 'new' teams came in...2008 and 2009.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:53 pm
Posts: 409
As someone on here pointed out once before, there is a world of difference between something being a "competition" and something being "competitive". By their very nature "competitions" are not necessarily "competitive". That's kind of the point of competitions, if they are competitive then that's just a bonus.

F1 is, and should remain, primarily a competition, and even so it is still currently more competitive than at virtually any other point in the sport's history (Admittedly I do feel some of the things brought in to make it more competitive run counter to the ethos of the sport, and as such shouldn't have been). If, however, you're still hankering after an even more competitive series to watch, try touring cars, particularly the BTCC, where they have a reverse grid, if you're quick they add weight to your car and, if you're still quick with the extra weight, they even restrict the turbo boost pressure (or the air intake size, i can't remember which way they restrict the power). Bloody good fun though.

_________________
"you can never be too paranoid"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:12 am
Posts: 31
SchumieRules wrote:
I am talking about myself here, not trying to force my opinion to you by the way. I am sure there others that feel this way though
[/quote]

Of course our opinions are different and I see from your point of view the points raised with tampering with the concept of Formula One; its always been that way. It's good just to have debates about things without it getting too heated, perhaps i should watch some more spec series racing I enjoy a bit of GP2 and WSR. Also the fact I'm a football fan I kind of think that sometimes F1 can be like La Liga with only a few teams dominating whereas in the Premier League its more competitive perhaps influencing my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 4008
CalMac wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
I am talking about myself here, not trying to force my opinion to you by the way. I am sure there others that feel this way though


Of course our opinions are different and I see from your point of view the points raised with tampering with the concept of Formula One; its always been that way. It's good just to have debates about things without it getting too heated, perhaps i should watch some more spec series racing I enjoy a bit of GP2 and WSR. Also the fact I'm a football fan I kind of think that sometimes F1 can be like La Liga with only a few teams dominating whereas in the Premier League its more competitive perhaps influencing my opinion.


It's good to talk about F1, isn't it? It doesn't have to be heated!

Spec series are nice to watch in their own respect, I agree.

_________________
ΜΣ...


Last edited by SchumieRules on Wed Nov 14, 2012 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:44 pm
Posts: 805
I don't think there need to be a lot of changes... had some thoughts about Qualy

Keep the same knockout format but Q1 eliminate 16-24, Q2 eliminate 9-15 leaving the top 8 to run in Q3.

Possibly give those in Q3 a special qualifying-only set of tyres and make them start on the tyre they used in Q2

Alternatively I had an idea similar to the race in the cycling omnium, where each lap or at a set time interval the slowest driver would be eliminated.... I guess you could set it so that every 5 minutes the slowest 3 would be eliminated and that sets the grid position. In theory that should allow drivers in danger time to run to the pits, bolt on some tyres and do a flier.

Would be interesting to see how long the front teams dare to stay out on the harder tyres etc, and different strategies

_________________
Pick 10 Competition:
2013 - 10th Place - Winner of the Nico Hulkenberg Trophy and Mystic Eddie Jordan's Crystal Ball
2014 - 9th Place - Winner of the Nico Hulkenberg Trophy


Pick 10 Podiums:
1st Place: USA 2012, Japan 2013
3rd Place: China 2014


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 3:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:37 am
Posts: 440
Location: San Diego, California USA
F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of Motorsport yet we get more and more restrictive each year to artificially bring the teams closer together, punish the fast teams and reward the slow ones.

I am just curious for those that watched F1 for a long time. Did this kind of thing come up back in the 80's and early 90's where it was common to only have a few cars on the lead lap and where the winner would win by a minute or more, qualify many seconds ahead of the rest?

I dont understand this call to make F1 more competitive for slower teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 3:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:12 am
Posts: 31
Bakerking31 wrote:
F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of Motorsport yet we get more and more restrictive each year to artificially bring the teams closer together, punish the fast teams and reward the slow ones.

I am just curious for those that watched F1 for a long time. Did this kind of thing come up back in the 80's and early 90's where it was common to only have a few cars on the lead lap and where the winner would win by a minute or more, qualify many seconds ahead of the rest?

I dont understand this call to make F1 more competitive for slower teams.



I can't really comment on the late 80's and early 90's as I only started watching F1 back in the late 90's and 2000's. I think it's the right time to bring it up now because many sports now have self imposing limits to prevent domination and increase competition. For example; football and the FFP rules, NBA budget limits and drafts, IPL draft and limits in cricket and many others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 3:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:06 pm
Posts: 268
Fiki wrote:
If uncertainty is what makes F1 "more interesting", the FIA could organise a lottery every race, just to determine the starting order.
Are you being sarcastic here? This is exactly how grid spots were allocated in the early days of Grand Prix racing. I can't see any reason why they couldn't do that today, provided that technical regulations allow for overtaking. Like someone else said, qualifications are inherently unsporting and akin to giving Usain Bolt a head start simply because he was quickest in the heats.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:37 am
Posts: 440
Location: San Diego, California USA
phfft... wrote:
Fiki wrote:
If uncertainty is what makes F1 "more interesting", the FIA could organise a lottery every race, just to determine the starting order.
Are you being sarcastic here? This is exactly how grid spots were allocated in the early days of Grand Prix racing. I can't see any reason why they couldn't do that today, provided that technical regulations allow for overtaking. Like someone else said, qualifications are inherently unsporting and akin to giving Usain Bolt a head start simply because he was quickest in the heats.


great idea ... lets see how many crashes we can have on lap 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:12 am
Posts: 31
phfft... wrote:
Fiki wrote:
If uncertainty is what makes F1 "more interesting", the FIA could organise a lottery every race, just to determine the starting order.
Are you being sarcastic here? This is exactly how grid spots were allocated in the early days of Grand Prix racing. I can't see any reason why they couldn't do that today, provided that technical regulations allow for overtaking. Like someone else said, qualifications are inherently unsporting and akin to giving Usain Bolt a head start simply because he was quickest in the heats.


I don't think we should have any randomness just limits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 4008
phfft... wrote:
Fiki wrote:
If uncertainty is what makes F1 "more interesting", the FIA could organise a lottery every race, just to determine the starting order.
Are you being sarcastic here? This is exactly how grid spots were allocated in the early days of Grand Prix racing. I can't see any reason why they couldn't do that today, provided that technical regulations allow for overtaking. Like someone else said, qualifications are inherently unsporting and akin to giving Usain Bolt a head start simply because he was quickest in the heats.



Does this mean that it was better?


And the Usain Bolt example is completely cr*p. If there was a wide enough track that could be used then it would maybe work. But it would be something like this:

Image


Only a little bit wider...

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:39 am
Posts: 1309
How about every driver's salary is based on results, be it race finishes, points or standings. All the same.

Next, the FIA allocate 24 (at the moment) Super Licences out each race (same drivers each time unless teams vote a driver out and/or a ban).

Those each pull a number out a hat. That's the car they drive that weekend.

WDC points are for the driver and WCC points for the team (as now).

F1 becomes pretty much a real lottery unlike the rest of its history. I'd largely stick with how it is now.

_________________
"We can not drive slower, just to make the races more exciting." Alain Prost


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 3758
Ok, my fix fix the 'drivers not putting in a lap time in Q3' problem - really simple, have the 107% rule apply to every individual session in qualifying, if its not met, excluded from qualifying and competing under stewards decision from weekend performance (so obviously, everyone should still be able to race) but alter the rules that red bull took advantage of in Abu Dhabi and lock the gear ratios and body parts to those used at the start of Q1.

EDIT to add: excluded from qualifying and competing under stewards discretion = starting from the back of the grid.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:32 pm
Posts: 614
There just needs to a rule for Q3 requiring all the drivers left in Q3 have to run a fast timed lap. Though the overall quali format is quite awful.

_________________
RSR Racing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:06 pm
Posts: 268
SchumieRules wrote:
And the Usain Bolt example is completely cr*p.
Thank you for your eloquent and persuasive counter-argument. Care to elaborate it further?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 2517
phfft... wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
And the Usain Bolt example is completely cr*p.
Thank you for your eloquent and persuasive counter-argument. Care to elaborate it further?

The runner who has the best time in the heats gets his choise of lanes in the final. So in a sense it's similar to qualifying already.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:37 am
Posts: 223
They could empower the smaller teams to improve by allowing them more testing.

For example every Monday after the race there could be a test session (everything is already at the track so minimal cost), in which the teams have a lap allocation in reverse championship order, lets say 10 laps per position. So Red Bull could do 10 laps per car, HRT could do 120.

It doesn't interfere with the race weekend itself but it gives the lower teams more of a chance to find ways to improve their game and compete. And in a way it's just making up for the inherent advantage the top teams have in more advanced simulators and wind tunnels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:00 pm
Posts: 605
Zekenwolf wrote:
1. Abolish all tyre restrictions. Let teams use whatever tyres they want in whchever manner. Not only will this provide more competition, every team will be trying to outguess the others on what is best for a given race.

2. Rules about techinical innovations should be more flexible and do away with fixed 'not allowed' lists. Some items may still be banned; but if a team comes up with a new innovation, they should have the opportunity to demonstrate its use to the officialdom before being allowed but they should not simply ban an innovation because other teams do not have it.

3. With the exception of Monaco, other tracks should have minimum width to make overtaking possible but not easy.

5. Turbo engines might make it more competitive. At least the races thATI saw in the turbo era were more competitive.



Fans ( at least most of the PF1 forum ) will complain because it is " another boring race " because no overtakes.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 4008
phfft... wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
And the Usain Bolt example is completely cr*p.
Thank you for your eloquent and persuasive counter-argument. Care to elaborate it further?


I think I did. 100m races are on a track wide enough to allow side by side starts. There is not such track in F1. It is damn impossible (I even included photographic evidence!!!). You were comparing apples and oranges, even in superbikes they can only start 3 abreast if I'm not mistaken.

And apologies, I wasn't attacking you, rather your argument. I hope my message didn't come across as offensive to yourself.

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1
Teams could be allowed additional in season testing based on position in the last season (You come first you get 1/2, second 1 day etc....)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:10 pm 
Bakerking31 wrote:
I am just curious for those that watched F1 for a long time. Did this kind of thing come up back in the 80's and early 90's where it was common to only have a few cars on the lead lap and where the winner would win by a minute or more, qualify many seconds ahead of the rest?


There has always been a case of "haves" and have-nots". But many years ago (the 60's and 70's, for example) budgets were MUCH smaller, innovation was allowed, and a good idea or great driver could find success. The story of Hesketh racing is worth examining. They first showed up in Formula One in 1973, yet were competitive and won a race in 1975.

Don't resort to NASCAR style gimmicks of reverse grids, watering the track, or lotteries. Level the playing field by enforcing a hard budget cap that can be enforced. Remove the manufacturers and teams from any decision-making process and relegate them purely to the status of competitors. Either they just compete, or they go away. As long as manufacturers and teams have any influence, they only want to turn Formula One into a racing series that benefits them and showcases their products.

Racing should be for the fans, and if Formula One can put out an entertaining and competitive product, it can stand on it's own purely on merit.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 427
6 of the 12 teams on the grid have won a race this season. 8 of the 24 drivers have won a race.

That's pretty damned competitive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 427
Zekenwolf wrote:
5. Turbo engines might make it more competitive. At least the races thATI saw in the turbo era were more competitive.


Eh?

Williams dominated 1986 and 1987, McLaren took that level of dominance to a whole new level in 1988. The common theme? Honda engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:51 am
Posts: 1167
GingerFurball wrote:
Zekenwolf wrote:
5. Turbo engines might make it more competitive. At least the races thATI saw in the turbo era were more competitive.


Eh?

Williams dominated 1986 and 1987, McLaren took that level of dominance to a whole new level in 1988. The common theme? Honda engines.


Yeah people seem to remember past races differently to what happened

Like when people take about the good old days.. But the good old days races were won by even bigger margins

_________________
Multi 21 or Catch 22?!

It ain't hating just 'cause it's not love


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 427
SilverstoneRegular wrote:
GingerFurball wrote:
Zekenwolf wrote:
5. Turbo engines might make it more competitive. At least the races thATI saw in the turbo era were more competitive.


Eh?

Williams dominated 1986 and 1987, McLaren took that level of dominance to a whole new level in 1988. The common theme? Honda engines.


Yeah people seem to remember past races differently to what happened

Like when people take about the good old days.. But the good old days races were won by even bigger margins


2012 season

Code:
Grand Prix     Pole        Winner     Winning Margain   Cars on lead lap

Australia      Hamilton    Button         2.139s         12
Malaysia       Hamilton    Alonso         2.263s         15
China          Rosberg     Rosberg       20.626s         17
Bahrain        Vettel      Vettel         3.333s         14
Spain          Maldonado   Maldonado      3.195s          9
Monaco         Webber      Webber         0.643s         10
Canada         Vettel      Hamilton       2.513s         14
Europe         Vettel      Alonso         6.421s         15
Great Britain  Alonso      Webber         3.060s         15
Germany        Alonso      Alonso         6.931s         14
Hungary        Hamilton    Hamilton       1.032s         14
Belgium        Button      Button        13.624s         13
Italy          Hamilton    Hamilton       4.356s         13
Singapore      Hamilton    Vettel         8.959s         16
Japan          Vettel      Vettel        20.632s         14
Korea          Webber      Vettel         8.231s         15
India          Vettel      Vettel         9.437s         14
Abu Dhabi      Hamilton    Raikkonen      0.852s         17


Let's compare it with the first season I watched, 1996.

Code:
Grand Prix     Pole        Winner     Winning Margain   Cars on lead lap

Australia      Villeneuve  Hill          38.020s          5
Brazil         Hill        Hill          17.982s          2
Argentina      Hill        Hill          12.167s          8
Europe         Hill        Villeneuve     0.762s          9
San Marino     Schumacher  Hill          16.460s          5
Monaco         Schumacher  Panis          4.828s          3
Spain          Hill        Schumacher    45.302s          3
Canada         Hill        Hill           4.183s          4
France         Schumacher  Hill           8.127s          5
Great Britain  Hill        Villeneuve    19.026s          5
Germany        Hill        Hill          11.452s          7
Hungary        Schumacher  Villeneuve     0.771s          3
Belgium        Villeneuve  Schumacher     5.602s          8
Italy          Hill        Schumacher    18.265s          5
Portugal       Hill        Villeneuve    19.966s          6
Japan          Villeneuve  Hill           1.883s         10


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:59 pm
Posts: 530
I think there's a lot right about Formula 1 at the present moment. Some people are new watchers, but people who've been there in the late 90's right up to late 00's would know how scarce overtaking had become.

I think, I'm living with DRS, though I think it's not needed on some tracks. On others, it's a must. I just feel in the DRS zone, the guy defending has no line of defense which is wrong. If it were up to me, I'd have the DRS rule like it is, but prohibit the guy behind from using KERS while the guy ahead can. It just gives the guy on the defensive something to fight with and the guy attacking earn his pass.

I would abolish all tyre restrictions. Just let the teams choose the compounds themselves.

I would also, tweak certain qualifying rules. Q1 would see the slowest 10 cars out, Q2 the next 8 and Q3 the next 6. If, in Q3 a fast lap is not set by any of the top 6 runners then they would get a 3 place grid penalty. Also, they would have to be within a certain range of lap time they did in Q2.

There, I just fixed F1! :]

_________________
#1

"You know the score.. Alright that's enough.. You're not going to get any points for that.."

"But Satisfaction!"

Sebastian Vettel
World Driver's Champion
2010,2011,2012.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:45 am
Posts: 275
I think realistically you can have 2 options for a true level playing field, a spec series which rules out the factory constructors and few want so can't happen or a reasonable and fairly enforsed
budget cap which would get my vote.

I'd be interested to see a wcc table that included the current spend of the team after the points colum.

_________________
Forgive me, Budweiser clouds my judgement sometimes...

Member of the Lewis Hamilton fan club but yet to receive my customary tin foil hat.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Asphalt_World, Liket, shoot999 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group