planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:29 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 7:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:02 am
Posts: 95
I feel as though F1 almost needs to be torn down and started again. In which case, what are the most important things F1 needs to feature or strive towards - what are it's core values?

And what are its secondary values? Those that are nice to have but not at the expense of its core values?

For me...

Core values:

• The quickest drivers in the world around a lap of a circuit
• The quickest cars in the world around a lap of a circuit
• The most talented engineers, with each engineer able to construct their own car within a set of regulations
• Regulations with a focus to allow for as close racing as possible without overly impacting on car speed, and without gimmicks to allow for easier overtaking (such as DRS and 'competition tyres')
• Racing on the most prestigious and advanced circuits in the world
• Involvement from the world's top automotive manufacturers, including peripheral suppliers such as tyres, oils etc.

Other values that a 'new F1' should have in the modern era:
• Fair distribution of prize and TV rights between teams (i.e. F1 not being a 'for profit')
• Equalisation of teams over time through, for example, allowing additional testing for teams beyond the first placed team, more drivers in practice etc. - i.e. in ways that allow slower teams to catch up rather than penalise the winners

Over to you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 8:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1531
Core Values:

The shareholders come first.
Profits should be maximised.
Money should be distributed as chosen by the shareholders representatives.
Circuits should be subsidised by outside parties such as governments who need better PR.
Cars should be useful as adverts for manufacturers who invest in F1.
Any practice not specifically excluded by every possible legal interpretation of the wording of the rules, is legal.
Drivers who can bring a lot of subsidy to F1 are welcome.
The FIA should adhere to the core values of F1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4561
Location: Michigan, USA
For me, it's relatively simple:

Core Values:

* A loosely defined formula to which every constructor must design their package.
* Cutting edge technology and innovation leading to the hands-down fastest cars in the world.
* The ability for teams to develop and test those cars throughout a season.
* No driver aids that replace an area where driver skill can make a difference.

Secondary Values:

* The best drivers in the world to drive them.
* Fair distribution of prize money dependent on results

Really, that's all you need. If the cars are the fastest, most advanced machines in the world - on another level from anything else, even an LMP1 prototype - it won't matter what the racing is like, because the spectacle is the boundaries of technology being pushed to their limit and applied to a racing machine. Sponsors and constructors will want to be involved because of the undeniable prestige of having anything to do with F1 again. Drivers will look like heroes again because of the machines they drive.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:08 pm
Posts: 59
nate wrote:
I feel as though F1 almost needs to be torn down and started again. In which case, what are the most important things F1 needs to feature or strive towards - what are it's core values?

And what are its secondary values? Those that are nice to have but not at the expense of its core values?

For me...

Core values:

• The quickest drivers in the world around a lap of a circuit
• The quickest cars in the world around a lap of a circuit
• The most talented engineers, with each engineer able to construct their own car within a set of regulations
• Regulations with a focus to allow for as close racing as possible without overly impacting on car speed, and without gimmicks to allow for easier overtaking (such as DRS and 'competition tyres')
• Racing on the most prestigious and advanced circuits in the world
• Involvement from the world's top automotive manufacturers, including peripheral suppliers such as tyres, oils etc.

Other values that a 'new F1' should have in the modern era:
• Fair distribution of prize and TV rights between teams (i.e. F1 not being a 'for profit')
• Equalisation of teams over time through, for example, allowing additional testing for teams beyond the first placed team, more drivers in practice etc. - i.e. in ways that allow slower teams to catch up rather than penalise the winners

Over to you.


I agree with almost everything you've said. Its actually kind of strange to find someone I agree almost a 100% with on the dilemma of what F1 should be about.

Imagine an F1 with Audi, BMW, Ford, Mercedes and Ferrari battling it out in tracks like Spa and Imola, where Petronas competes with Shell, Mobil, Total, Castrol, Exxon, and where Bridgestone goes head to head with Pirelli, Yokohama, Michelin and Goodyear.

Some exceptions:
- I'd free up regulations more (because fast cars is a top priority for me), allowing teams to work around the close-racing / dirty air issue in more creative ways
- I disagree with giving slower teams more testing kilometres. Its smells like it comes from the same pit a rule like reverse grids would, where successful teams are put at a disadvantage.

I particularly like the idea of F1 being run as a non-profit organisation, at least to some extent. What they should do is:
1. Completely delayer the ownership structure that currently exists
2. Setup an 11-man committee to run the sport (odd number for voting purposes), deciding on all technical and sporting matters, and working under salaries. They should include 2 teams representatives, 1 drivers representative, 2 suppliers representatives, 2 FIA representatives, and 4 consulting members (ex-drivers, ex-team owners, safety personnel etc.). All the committee's proceedings should be 100% transparent to the public.
3. This means a ton of profit is removed from the equation, and that money has to go somewhere. Say F1's current owners make $4 million a year, I would say - after deducting the committee's salaries - the remainder is given to fans and race promotors; 60% ($2.4m) in terms of Grand Prix ticket reductions, and 40% ($1.6m) in reductions to the royalties paid by race promoters.

All this would mean the sport's technical and sporting regulations are determined in good spirit, race promoters would be fighting to get a place on the calendar knowing their grandstands would be packed more than a premiership derby on a beautiful spring evening, and all would be good in the world once more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 3184
Everything the OP states :thumbup:

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 3479
Location: Belgium
Yes to what the OP says even though don't think smaller teams should get more testing time.
Oh and drop any form of elimination qualifying. Return to proper qualifying please.

_________________
F1 fan since 1989
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:41 am
Posts: 1416
Glad to see no calls for F1 to develop "green" technology. That has nothing to do with racing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1725
Exediron wrote:
Really, that's all you need. If the cars are the fastest, most advanced machines in the world - on another level from anything else, even an LMP1 prototype - it won't matter what the racing is like, because the spectacle is the boundaries of technology being pushed to their limit and applied to a racing machine. Sponsors and constructors will want to be involved because of the undeniable prestige of having anything to do with F1 again. Drivers will look like heroes again because of the machines they drive.

Do you actually think that simply having "really fast cars" is actually going to get anyone interested in F1 these days?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1531
Exediron wrote:
For me, it's relatively simple:

Really, that's all you need. If the cars are the fastest, most advanced machines in the world - on another level from anything else, even an LMP1 prototype - it won't matter what the racing is like, because the spectacle is the boundaries of technology being pushed to their limit and applied to a racing machine. Sponsors and constructors will want to be involved because of the undeniable prestige of having anything to do with F1 again. Drivers will look like heroes again because of the machines they drive.


The problem with that is, its possible to make cars so fast that humans couldn't drive them. Such cars would also need all new racing circuits and spectators would need to be kept at a safe distance - a long way from the cars.

Rules are required to keep the performance within acceptable limits.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1725
That is another great point. I don't think that the advocates of the "loosen up the rules!" argument understand just how fast racing cars can be with minimal regulation.

Basically:

1. The most advanced technology
2. Wheel to wheel racing

In F1, you can only pick one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:41 am
Posts: 1416
KingVoid wrote:
That is another great point. I don't think that the advocates of the "loosen up the rules!" argument understand just how fast racing cars can be with minimal regulation.

Basically:

1. The most advanced technology
2. Wheel to wheel racing

In F1, you can only pick one.


I dont give a rat's bum about technology. I want raw speed, loud noises, beautiful cars, and heroic drivers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 5:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5052
There's a couple of things in the OP that don't seem right to me -

Prestigious and advanced circuits? To me there aren't any that are both! I would take out the advanced part and leave it at simply prestigious. You could of course take prestigious as to meaning the new expensive and impressive looking circuits like Adu Dhabi and Singapore, but to me it would mean circuits that produce the best racing and/or have a rich history and which are well received by fans.

The other is the part about engineers. I would agree that the sport should attract and employ the best there is, but this will not be the case if they are all supposed to be able to build their own cars if required. Putting the cars together from parts is fair enough, but when you get the best engineers in the world actually building the cars together you will obviously have some specialised is different areas of the cars during the initial build phase, having a lot of engineers who can build the cars themselves will male the cars not the best that they can possibly be.

Everything else I think is spot on, the only thing missing is that it should try to be as accessible to all fans as possible. This would mean making sure all are sport are less exclusive depending on wealth or disposable income. Having a dedicated and affordable service, making sure that events are affordable to most, not having the very distinct (almost social class like) split between the general spectators and the paddock area (other motor sports events I've been to are able to do this without putting on a massive price increase) etc. Basically, drop the whole 'glamour' thing! Glamour doesn't exist and doesn't include 99% of people, what f1 means by glamour, is rich boys and pretty girls following the money!

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 3479
Location: Belgium
HS Thompson wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
That is another great point. I don't think that the advocates of the "loosen up the rules!" argument understand just how fast racing cars can be with minimal regulation.

Basically:

1. The most advanced technology
2. Wheel to wheel racing

In F1, you can only pick one.


I dont give a rat's bum about technology. I want raw speed, loud noises, beautiful cars, and heroic drivers.


While I do prefer good racing over technology I would really not want F1 to become a spec series. If technology allows one team to distinct from each other I find that more than welcome.

_________________
F1 fan since 1989
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 3184
Agree with Amon on qualifying. :thumbup:

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1168
Location: Los Angeles, California
KingVoid wrote:
That is another great point. I don't think that the advocates of the "loosen up the rules!" argument understand just how fast racing cars can be with minimal regulation.

Basically:

1. The most advanced technology
2. Wheel to wheel racing

In F1, you can only pick one.


Not true. I think #1 can lead to #2 if used in the right area.

If there was a way to stabilize the air that trails behind an F1 car, then it would help the trailing car's front wing work how it's supposed to work. Obviously, the trailing car won't ever have 100% downforce, but it could have more than it does currently when following a car closely.

This is why the movable front wings from 2009 didn't work. It doesn't matter how big the front wings are, or at what angle they are set to, if the air hitting them is so unstable that the wing can't direct the air wherever the wing is designed to direct it.



As for the core values, I completely agree with nate. That looks like a pretty damn good list.

_________________
"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."
Jean-Pierre Sarti


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 7:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:08 pm
Posts: 1196
Having a noble set of core values is all very well, but I’d imagine that even with the best of intentions achieving those core values within the current F1 environment must be like juggling water.

It would be interesting to look at FOM’s and the FIA’s stated core values and see how they compare to actuality. I suspect anyone would have their hands full trying to manage the various agendas and vested interests towards a set of values that would be acceptable to us lowly fans (even if they wanted to).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 551
Of course the cars need to be quick but I think people get to hung up on this aspect, and as long as they remain in the current ball park, perhaps a touch quicker, then I really don’t think this is a huge issue. They just need to be fast enough and difficult enough to drive, to test those quickest drivers you had mentioned previously. It’s is widely accepted that the speed has to be measured alongside safety.

Speed is only really an issue because they decided to bring in new PUs with fairly aggressive fuel caps, at the same time as a raft of aero restrictions which rather unsurprisingly resulted in a lot of complaints about lack of speed. They really just need to carefully evaluate changes and bring them in at the right time - not necessarily do everything at once. Pretty much what you would expect from any professional organization.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4561
Location: Michigan, USA
KingVoid wrote:
Do you actually think that simply having "really fast cars" is actually going to get anyone interested in F1 these days?

Short answer; yes. Long answer; the cars being faster and more advanced is what makes F1 different/better than other racing series. The racing will never be as close and 'good' as what spec (especially stock) cars can provide, so it is literally impossible for F1 to compete by trying to have the best racing. It has never done so.

babararacucudada wrote:
The problem with that is, its possible to make cars so fast that humans couldn't drive them. Such cars would also need all new racing circuits and spectators would need to be kept at a safe distance - a long way from the cars.

Rules are required to keep the performance within acceptable limits.

There is a great deal of truth to this, and it's why F1 is - in the long run - doomed. From its inception to the 1990s (2000s if you're being generous) F1 was purely about one thing; making the fastest cars possible. After that was no longer the point, the whole concept of Formula 1 became diluted.

I acknowledge that there is a point beyond which the cars will be too fast for a human to drive, but we're not actually anywhere near that point. Even Adrian Newey's monster RBRX2010 theoretical design was only producing 8G maximum, which is less than a fighter jet pulls on sharp turns. With the right equipment and training, a driver would be able to last a Grand Prix. And that car had a fully enclosed cockpit and covered wheels, as well as full ground effects - all things you could still ban. With an open wheel, open cockpit chassis and no ground effects, I'd be surprised if the cars would reach that sort of potential, especially if they're still restricted to small engines.

The bottom line for me is that many people focus too much on trying to make F1 into something it isn't - a lap-by-lap exciting spectacle with wheel-to-wheel battles up and down the field. Anyone with a working knowledge of F1 history should know it's never been like that, and I don't understand why suddenly everyone wants it to be.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1531
Exediron wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Do you actually think that simply having "really fast cars" is actually going to get anyone interested in F1 these days?

Short answer; yes. Long answer; the cars being faster and more advanced is what makes F1 different/better than other racing series. The racing will never be as close and 'good' as what spec (especially stock) cars can provide, so it is literally impossible for F1 to compete by trying to have the best racing. It has never done so.

babararacucudada wrote:
The problem with that is, its possible to make cars so fast that humans couldn't drive them. Such cars would also need all new racing circuits and spectators would need to be kept at a safe distance - a long way from the cars.

Rules are required to keep the performance within acceptable limits.

There is a great deal of truth to this, and it's why F1 is - in the long run - doomed. From its inception to the 1990s (2000s if you're being generous) F1 was purely about one thing; making the fastest cars possible. After that was no longer the point, the whole concept of Formula 1 became diluted.

I acknowledge that there is a point beyond which the cars will be too fast for a human to drive, but we're not actually anywhere near that point. Even Adrian Newey's monster RBRX2010 theoretical design was only producing 8G maximum, which is less than a fighter jet pulls on sharp turns. With the right equipment and training, a driver would be able to last a Grand Prix. And that car had a fully enclosed cockpit and covered wheels, as well as full ground effects - all things you could still ban. With an open wheel, open cockpit chassis and no ground effects, I'd be surprised if the cars would reach that sort of potential, especially if they're still restricted to small engines.

The bottom line for me is that many people focus too much on trying to make F1 into something it isn't - a lap-by-lap exciting spectacle with wheel-to-wheel battles up and down the field. Anyone with a working knowledge of F1 history should know it's never been like that, and I don't understand why suddenly everyone wants it to be.


I don't think F1 is doomed.

There is a limit to how good a driver can be. We don't need cars that are beyond that limit.

The other limit is, existing tracks. The tracks suit cars of a certain level of performance. If you make the cars so fast around corners that a lot of the corners can be taken flat out, they are no longer corners, just kinks. Reducing braking areas is not conducive to racing. Aerodynamics to make the car perform at it's best that depend mostly on it running in clean air are not conducive to racing.

They should be trying to write the rules to produce race cars that are best suited for racing - not fuel economy. Yes you could try to do both, but that causes unnecessary expense. Someone has to pay for F1, and it will have more viewers if it is both attractive to watch and cheaper to watch. It only needs to be expensive enough to produce the fastest RACE cars which are challenging for the best drivers in the world to drive at their limit on circuits that exist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2246
Exediron wrote:
The bottom line for me is that many people focus too much on trying to make F1 into something it isn't - a lap-by-lap exciting spectacle with wheel-to-wheel battles up and down the field. Anyone with a working knowledge of F1 history should know it's never been like that, and I don't understand why suddenly everyone wants it to be.


And there's the rub. It's not so much 'everyone' as all those people who pay for TV packages who are being courted as the potential audience. The old school died in the wool F1 fanatic knows there are dull seasons, but that doesn't work in the modern day with an audience who are paying to be entertained. We know kids today can barely get to the end of a youtube clip before they are on to something else, how do we expect them to watch a two hour procession and get excited by it?

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:37 pm
Posts: 543
ALESI wrote:
Exediron wrote:
The bottom line for me is that many people focus too much on trying to make F1 into something it isn't - a lap-by-lap exciting spectacle with wheel-to-wheel battles up and down the field. Anyone with a working knowledge of F1 history should know it's never been like that, and I don't understand why suddenly everyone wants it to be.


And there's the rub. It's not so much 'everyone' as all those people who pay for TV packages who are being courted as the potential audience. The old school died in the wool F1 fanatic knows there are dull seasons, but that doesn't work in the modern day with an audience who are paying to be entertained. We know kids today can barely get to the end of a youtube clip before they are on to something else, how do we expect them to watch a two hour procession and get excited by it?


That's an interesting view but is it just the kids & the newcomers? There's been a lot of consternation and grumblings from what has now been coined “the grumpy old men” brigade --- constantly harking back to a "yesteryear" and supposedly viewing F1 through rose tinted glasses?

_________________
You just need to be accepted for who you are and be proud of who you are and that is what I'm trying to do.
Lewis Hamilton


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:29 am
Posts: 178
Core Values:

The world's best drivers in open-wheel race cars running in a world championship with a spread of races around the world
A showcase of cutting-edge science, technology and engineering
A testing ground for manufacturers and suppliers - the consumer/industry technology of tomorrow
Relaxed rules (this is the "Open" formula)
As fast as a car can be made to go (while maintaining safety)
Exciting and challenging race circuits
Awe-inspiring to spectate live

Other Ideas

A budget cap of say $50m per car. E.g. if you want to spend $200m you run 4 cars
Funding from appearance fees/tv rights is distributed equally per car entered.
Prize money is based solely on constructor points.
Bring back the tyre wars
Bring back refueling with smallish fuel tanks to promote fuel economy (but not mandate it)
Wholesale changes in rules are not allowed from year-to-year. Cars would then gradually evolve in a more natural fashion and smaller teams would have more time to catch up (or even purchase larger team cars at the end of the year).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 4:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:45 am
Posts: 512
Location: Michigan, USA
It seems I mostly agree with everyone else who's posted so far.

Core Values:
- Relatively open formula, with the assumption of innovative and interesting solutions being sought by different teams
- The best drivers in the best machines
- Allowance for in-season development and testing
- Driver's championship and the constructor's championship throughout the season

Other Values:
- Preferably gimmick-free regulations allowing that keep the amount of driver-assists down to a bare minimum
- Racing in a wide variety of countries throughout the world (and, ideally, keeping the tracks with the most history)
- Fair distribution of the prize money

aice wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Exediron wrote:
The bottom line for me is that many people focus too much on trying to make F1 into something it isn't - a lap-by-lap exciting spectacle with wheel-to-wheel battles up and down the field. Anyone with a working knowledge of F1 history should know it's never been like that, and I don't understand why suddenly everyone wants it to be.


And there's the rub. It's not so much 'everyone' as all those people who pay for TV packages who are being courted as the potential audience. The old school died in the wool F1 fanatic knows there are dull seasons, but that doesn't work in the modern day with an audience who are paying to be entertained. We know kids today can barely get to the end of a youtube clip before they are on to something else, how do we expect them to watch a two hour procession and get excited by it?


That's an interesting view but is it just the kids & the newcomers? There's been a lot of consternation and grumblings from what has now been coined “the grumpy old men” brigade --- constantly harking back to a "yesteryear" and supposedly viewing F1 through rose tinted glasses?

Indeed. A lot of the complaints that I've noticed couldn't come from people who haven't been watching F1 for very long, unless they're just making assumptions about an era of the sport they haven't personally watched and want it to return to that anyhow (which is possible; I'm not ruling it out). Of course, the potential newcomers who would be turned off by insufficient passing are presumably not commenting in places I'd see it, so I have no idea how many of them there might be. Personally, as still something of a newcomer myself, I actually appreciate that it isn't constant overtaking everywhere -- it's easier to follow the strategies and get a good idea of how the race is unfolding that way. Of course, I'm also very interested in the history of the sport, and I started doing as much reading up on it as I could as soon as I started watching, so I may be something of a statistical outlier.

Honestly, my general opinion is that if people want F1 to be more of a spec series with near-constant overtaking, there are plenty of other series that they can watch instead. That's never been what made F1 special, nor will it ever be, because if it does get to that point it will no longer have its main distinguishing characteristics. I think the advertising would do well to play up the more unique aspects of F1 instead (and stop trying to play up the glamour angle -- surely I'm not the only one whose teeth grit from that?). Perhaps that wouldn't have as much mass-market appeal, but having still rather large numbers of dedicated fans is generally better than having masses of may-tune-in casual viewers anyhow... particularly if you take advantage of that by selling things such as season collections.

_________________
Top Three: 5 wins, 17 podiums | 2016: 9th [6th] | 2017: 16th [6th]
Pick 10: 1 win, 4 podiums | 2016: 22nd | 2017: 21st
F1 Oracle: 5 wins | 2016: 6th | 2017: 6th
Group Pick'em: 2 wins, 6 podiums | 2016: 14th | 2017: 12th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 225
Remmirath wrote:
It seems I mostly agree with everyone else who's posted so far.

Core Values:
- Relatively open formula, with the assumption of innovative and interesting solutions being sought by different teams
- The best drivers in the best machines
- Allowance for in-season development and testing
- Driver's championship and the constructor's championship throughout the season

Other Values:
- Preferably gimmick-free regulations allowing that keep the amount of driver-assists down to a bare minimum
- Racing in a wide variety of countries throughout the world (and, ideally, keeping the tracks with the most history)
- Fair distribution of the prize money

aice wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Exediron wrote:
The bottom line for me is that many people focus too much on trying to make F1 into something it isn't - a lap-by-lap exciting spectacle with wheel-to-wheel battles up and down the field. Anyone with a working knowledge of F1 history should know it's never been like that, and I don't understand why suddenly everyone wants it to be.


And there's the rub. It's not so much 'everyone' as all those people who pay for TV packages who are being courted as the potential audience. The old school died in the wool F1 fanatic knows there are dull seasons, but that doesn't work in the modern day with an audience who are paying to be entertained. We know kids today can barely get to the end of a youtube clip before they are on to something else, how do we expect them to watch a two hour procession and get excited by it?


That's an interesting view but is it just the kids & the newcomers? There's been a lot of consternation and grumblings from what has now been coined “the grumpy old men” brigade --- constantly harking back to a "yesteryear" and supposedly viewing F1 through rose tinted glasses?

Indeed. A lot of the complaints that I've noticed couldn't come from people who haven't been watching F1 for very long, unless they're just making assumptions about an era of the sport they haven't personally watched and want it to return to that anyhow (which is possible; I'm not ruling it out). Of course, the potential newcomers who would be turned off by insufficient passing are presumably not commenting in places I'd see it, so I have no idea how many of them there might be. Personally, as still something of a newcomer myself, I actually appreciate that it isn't constant overtaking everywhere -- it's easier to follow the strategies and get a good idea of how the race is unfolding that way. Of course, I'm also very interested in the history of the sport, and I started doing as much reading up on it as I could as soon as I started watching, so I may be something of a statistical outlier.

Honestly, my general opinion is that if people want F1 to be more of a spec series with near-constant overtaking, there are plenty of other series that they can watch instead. That's never been what made F1 special, nor will it ever be, because if it does get to that point it will no longer have its main distinguishing characteristics. I think the advertising would do well to play up the more unique aspects of F1 instead (and stop trying to play up the glamour angle -- surely I'm not the only one whose teeth grit from that?). Perhaps that wouldn't have as much mass-market appeal, but having still rather large numbers of dedicated fans is generally better than having masses of may-tune-in casual viewers anyhow... particularly if you take advantage of that by selling things such as season collections.


The problem with the anti spec series stance is that one ends up with something far worse ! I always believed in assessing what is in front of you and not what you hope/d it would be.Your grievances will never be addressed all things considered.
It's hilarious that people can't see the obvious , which is that those running the show don't want what you want.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9722
Location: Ireland
babararacucudada wrote:
Core Values:

The shareholders come first.
Profits should be maximised.
Money should be distributed as chosen by the shareholders representatives.
Circuits should be subsidised by outside parties such as governments who need better PR.
Cars should be useful as adverts for manufacturers who invest in F1.
Any practice not specifically excluded by every possible legal interpretation of the wording of the rules, is legal.
Drivers who can bring a lot of subsidy to F1 are welcome.
The FIA should adhere to the core values of F1.

:lol:

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 3479
Location: Belgium
ALESI wrote:
Exediron wrote:
The bottom line for me is that many people focus too much on trying to make F1 into something it isn't - a lap-by-lap exciting spectacle with wheel-to-wheel battles up and down the field. Anyone with a working knowledge of F1 history should know it's never been like that, and I don't understand why suddenly everyone wants it to be.


And there's the rub. It's not so much 'everyone' as all those people who pay for TV packages who are being courted as the potential audience. The old school died in the wool F1 fanatic knows there are dull seasons, but that doesn't work in the modern day with an audience who are paying to be entertained. We know kids today can barely get to the end of a youtube clip before they are on to something else, how do we expect them to watch a two hour procession and get excited by it?


So they are to blame for the WWE style qualifying we had the last 10 years? I even see longtime F1 fans loving the elimination qualy so it's not only the youngsters.

_________________
F1 fan since 1989
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21004
Amon wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Exediron wrote:
The bottom line for me is that many people focus too much on trying to make F1 into something it isn't - a lap-by-lap exciting spectacle with wheel-to-wheel battles up and down the field. Anyone with a working knowledge of F1 history should know it's never been like that, and I don't understand why suddenly everyone wants it to be.


And there's the rub. It's not so much 'everyone' as all those people who pay for TV packages who are being courted as the potential audience. The old school died in the wool F1 fanatic knows there are dull seasons, but that doesn't work in the modern day with an audience who are paying to be entertained. We know kids today can barely get to the end of a youtube clip before they are on to something else, how do we expect them to watch a two hour procession and get excited by it?


So they are to blame for the WWE style qualifying we had the last 10 years? I even see longtime F1 fans loving the elimination qualy so it's not only the youngsters.

I don't understand how it's WWE?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9722
Location: Ireland
Without going into too much detail

- A drivers' championship where the driver with the most points is declared the winner
- The same number of points per Grand Prix
- A constructors' championship for constructors
- The world championship to take place worldwide, while maintaining a solid base in its traditional home of Europe (ideally I would prefer a Grand Prix on every habitable continent i.e. Africa to be represented on the calendar as well)
- Continually aim to be the premier class of open wheel racing in the world

Some of those definitions are loose. Define "solid base" or "premier class". But that would be the gist of it. I might think of more later

I could go into specifics like qualifying, tyres, engines, gimmicks, etc. but most issues are temporary

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4561
Location: Michigan, USA
ToniWolf wrote:
The problem with the anti spec series stance is that one ends up with something far worse ! I always believed in assessing what is in front of you and not what you hope/d it would be.Your grievances will never be addressed all things considered.
It's hilarious that people can't see the obvious , which is that those running the show don't want what you want.

How do you get that? Of course we know Bernie & Co. don't want the same things we want. I didn't notice the thread's title being 'What do those running the show think F1's core values are'.

As for the anti-spec series thing, whether the result is worse or not is entirely down to what you want out of it.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2246
aice wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Exediron wrote:
The bottom line for me is that many people focus too much on trying to make F1 into something it isn't - a lap-by-lap exciting spectacle with wheel-to-wheel battles up and down the field. Anyone with a working knowledge of F1 history should know it's never been like that, and I don't understand why suddenly everyone wants it to be.


And there's the rub. It's not so much 'everyone' as all those people who pay for TV packages who are being courted as the potential audience. The old school died in the wool F1 fanatic knows there are dull seasons, but that doesn't work in the modern day with an audience who are paying to be entertained. We know kids today can barely get to the end of a youtube clip before they are on to something else, how do we expect them to watch a two hour procession and get excited by it?


That's an interesting view but is it just the kids & the newcomers? There's been a lot of consternation and grumblings from what has now been coined “the grumpy old men” brigade --- constantly harking back to a "yesteryear" and supposedly viewing F1 through rose tinted glasses?


That's true but to survive long term F1 has to engage the younger generation. I think the grumpy old men aren't so much looking through rose-tinted glasses, as perhaps grasping at anything which will make F1 less dull. Two things made F1 more exciting in the past, reliability and extremity.
The cars were harder to drive so the drivers made more mistakes, today's drivers are working far too much within their comfort levels.
Reliability, now I know someone will say, oh yes it's so much more exciting watching cars break down, but it's more than that. Tyres were less predictable in the old days so a driver could have a good first set and then a not so good second set. Whether that's desirable or not is debatable, but that's the sort of thing which facilitated overtaking, variations in performance throughout the race.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:33 am
Posts: 2824
I see "core values" quite differently. For me it is more about the the defining principles of an organisation which guide the behavior of it's members and associates. So for me they would read:

- Integrity: Open, honest communication, accountable behavior, and a high standard of business and sporting ethics
- Respect: For individuals, communities, cultures, and for diversity
- Action: Agility, boldness and innovation, striving for continuous improvement
- Results: Aspiring for excellence

Of course, with F1 the way it is presently, I think I'm dreaming... :-?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition:
- 3 victories (USA '17, USA '16, Mexico '16),
- 6 podiums
- 2013 Rookie of the Year
- 2014 Championship 6th position
- 2016 Championship 9th position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1135
Safety is number one priority at all times.

So interesting that every fan eagerly anticipates every race.

Brave young men/women given the opportunity to showcase all of their talents.

A viable business model that ensures a stable future for the sport.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21004
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Safety is number one priority at all times.

So interesting that every fan eagerly anticipates every race.

Brave young men/women given the opportunity to showcase all of their talents.

A viable business model that ensures a stable future for the sport.

welcome back!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2559
Location: UK
I'm all for having the most advanced racing machines on the planet that represent the pinnacle of engineering... but unfortunately automotive technology has outgrown human capability. The biggest flaw holding back Formula 1 nowadays is the soft fleshy thing sat in the cockpit and as a result any new technology applied to these cars has to be hobbled to keep them driveable, which kind of defeats the point. The current engines are the primary example of this, with fuel flow rate and hybrid energy recovery having to be carefully limited to achieve the same peak power output as a naturally aspirated V8, which as a concept is much inferior.

I'd love to see what could be achieved in a separate race series with completely unlimited technical regulations and with the cars driven remotely to remove the flawed human element. But so long as F1 retains a human driver (which it must), the cars cannot be made any more technically impressive to the casual viewer than they are now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4156
Absolute core:
Be fast
Be entertaining
Be safe (as much as is reasonably practicable)

Second to those:
Open wheel (I'm not overly fussed if a canopy is added)
Cool engineering


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 7:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:04 am
Posts: 1778
Fast cars, fast drivers go racing on safe circuits and cars (as much as possible of-course).
F**k everything else.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9722
Location: Ireland
j man wrote:
I'm all for having the most advanced racing machines on the planet that represent the pinnacle of engineering... but unfortunately automotive technology has outgrown human capability. The biggest flaw holding back Formula 1 nowadays is the soft fleshy thing sat in the cockpit and as a result any new technology applied to these cars has to be hobbled to keep them driveable, which kind of defeats the point. The current engines are the primary example of this, with fuel flow rate and hybrid energy recovery having to be carefully limited to achieve the same peak power output as a naturally aspirated V8, which as a concept is much inferior.

I'd love to see what could be achieved in a separate race series with completely unlimited technical regulations and with the cars driven remotely to remove the flawed human element. But so long as F1 retains a human driver (which it must), the cars cannot be made any more technically impressive to the casual viewer than they are now.

You're in luck
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122006

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7798
It is an ever changing world, and by the end of next year several mainstream car makers will be selling cars that are self driving, all bar the authorising. The most restricting component of a F1 car is the driver.

With freed up regs, the teams could make cars far smaller, far faster far cheaper than todays, and far, far less likely to crash.

To keep F1 as a viable series long term it has to be centred around the driver and human team.

A team entering a self driving car next season, with all other rules withstanding, would win it easily.

F1 has to not only keep it a driver centred format but roll back some of the tech added in the last decade, or it will disappear


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Posts: 416
Location: illinois
after bernie's latest nonsensical rant against the drivers, the #1 priority should be getting bernie far, far away from f1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2246
mcdo wrote:
j man wrote:
I'm all for having the most advanced racing machines on the planet that represent the pinnacle of engineering... but unfortunately automotive technology has outgrown human capability. The biggest flaw holding back Formula 1 nowadays is the soft fleshy thing sat in the cockpit and as a result any new technology applied to these cars has to be hobbled to keep them driveable, which kind of defeats the point. The current engines are the primary example of this, with fuel flow rate and hybrid energy recovery having to be carefully limited to achieve the same peak power output as a naturally aspirated V8, which as a concept is much inferior.

I'd love to see what could be achieved in a separate race series with completely unlimited technical regulations and with the cars driven remotely to remove the flawed human element. But so long as F1 retains a human driver (which it must), the cars cannot be made any more technically impressive to the casual viewer than they are now.

You're in luck
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122006


I saw that story on another site, and 95% of comments were 'what's the point'.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


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: No registered users 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