planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:53 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:47 pm
Posts: 20
So Ross Brawn has said there is no quick fix for F1. http://www.planetf1.com/news/brawn-warn ... ix-for-f1/

Do you agree? Or do you feel there are quick fixes?

Mine would be the introduction of a second tyre manufacturer in an attempt to close the gap between teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 3767
There are some quick fixes...
Current PU's are very expensive, so the obvious one would be to set a fixed price per PU so the small teams can afford them, and the whole F1 costs are cut down... Another thing is, will the engine manufacturers agree... well thats the problem when they think they are bigger than the sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6829
Location: Belgium
A tyre war might be interesting, but in case of one manufacturer being clearly superior, you would simply divide the field into haves and have-nots.

My first measure would be the immediate and total ban on race directions from the pitlane. Give the driver information via the pitboardf, and make him think his own race through.
The second would be a very serious reduction in allowed downforce. Front and rear wings of very restricted camber and overall dimensions, and with a maximum of two elements.
A third option would be a complete ban on tyre stops for reasons other than replacing a punctured or terminally damaged tyre.

In other words, come back to Grand Prix racing, instead of NASA moonshots.

_________________
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: Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20994
Stop the obsession with conservation and bring back pushing to the limit. The rest is just window dressing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1701
nixxxon wrote:
There are some quick fixes...
Current PU's are very expensive, so the obvious one would be to set a fixed price per PU so the small teams can afford them, and the whole F1 costs are cut down... Another thing is, will the engine manufacturers agree... well thats the problem when they think they are bigger than the sport.


Hence, no quick fix. You need a whole bunch of people with varying agendas to agree for that to happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 3767
Ennis wrote:
nixxxon wrote:
There are some quick fixes...
Current PU's are very expensive, so the obvious one would be to set a fixed price per PU so the small teams can afford them, and the whole F1 costs are cut down... Another thing is, will the engine manufacturers agree... well thats the problem when they think they are bigger than the sport.


Hence, no quick fix. You need a whole bunch of people with varying agendas to agree for that to happen.

Don't know why they could not agree on this. I mean, isn't it interesting to research for modern, high efficent engines that are also affordable for the masses? So, newer and cheaper technologies and techniques for the engines would be welcome for the market.
Who wouldn't like an engine that is powerful, fuel efficient, and affordable/cheap, all at the same time?
Zoue wrote:
Stop the obsession with conservation and bring back pushing to the limit. The rest is just window dressing

Since decades ago F1 stopped being about pushing to the limit... since at least the ban of the fan car, if not earlier


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20994
nixxxon wrote:
Ennis wrote:
nixxxon wrote:
There are some quick fixes...
Current PU's are very expensive, so the obvious one would be to set a fixed price per PU so the small teams can afford them, and the whole F1 costs are cut down... Another thing is, will the engine manufacturers agree... well thats the problem when they think they are bigger than the sport.


Hence, no quick fix. You need a whole bunch of people with varying agendas to agree for that to happen.

Don't know why they could not agree on this. I mean, isn't it interesting to research for modern, high efficent engines that are also affordable for the masses? So, newer and cheaper technologies and techniques for the engines would be welcome for the market.
Who wouldn't like an engine that is powerful, fuel efficient, and affordable/cheap, all at the same time?
Zoue wrote:
Stop the obsession with conservation and bring back pushing to the limit. The rest is just window dressing

Since decades ago F1 stopped being about pushing to the limit... since at least the ban of the fan car, if not earlier

No, I don't think that's true. It's a comparatively recent phenomenon


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 3767
Zoue wrote:
No, I don't think that's true. It's a comparatively recent phenomenon

We can go on with the ban of the ground effect, the ban of the 80's turbos, the active suspension ban, the engine reduction of the 90's, grooved tyres... and then the v10 ban, the traction control ban, the aero overhaul, and so on...

Anyway, F1 is not realistic without limits, because it would be extremely processional and the cars would be nearly impossible to drive due to the massive G forces.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20994
nixxxon wrote:
Zoue wrote:
No, I don't think that's true. It's a comparatively recent phenomenon

We can go on with the ban of the ground effect, the ban of the 80's turbos, the active suspension ban, the engine reduction of the 90's, grooved tyres... and then the v10 ban, the traction control ban, the aero overhaul, and so on...

Anyway, F1 is not realistic without limits, because it would be extremely processional and the cars would be nearly impossible to drive due to the massive G forces.

I think you may have misunderstood. Banning of the above had nothing to do with conservation. That includes things like comedy tyres (built to degrade if pushed too hard) and making components last for ever longer periods, meaning teams are afraid to stress them too much and drivers have to drive well within their capabilities


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1836
last 20 years has been a succession of quick fixes, most of them trying to fix previous quick fixes. They don't work because there is never any consideration of what happens if it doesn't work in the very specific way the FIA have dreamed up that it will.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 3184
I'm sure Brawn is right : one cannot just change a system that's been deveoped over years, overnight. Teams need time to incorporate new regs ahead of their packed schedules.

Agree with suggestions above here to return to racing fast and hard. :thumbup: Get rid of the boredom-and-channel-switching preventive tyre changes, re-fuel stops and saving of components. F1 should be about speed. Let teams stop as often or as few times as they choose. Within a race of any team gaining a strategic advantage, the others would be onto it, so races would be as close as always. I haven't though it through and don't know enough, but what about just two tyre types, dry and wet, left to team choice? Performances would then be more comparable.

I have never liked the hideous front wings. They have caused so many collisions, tyre slashes and consequently ruined so many races. There is enough knowledge of aero today to redesign bodywork without front wings. The cars would look a so much better.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 6:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4279
There are a few things that would address glaring weaknesses:

1. Re-design the revenue distribution system to be more equitable. You cannot call yourself a sport when there is a baked-in advantage for certain competitors. Regardless of how important you perceive Ferrari, Mercedes or Red Bull to be, that shouldn't earn them an unfair advantage. By addressing this, they will make participation in F1 economically viable; which it currently simply is not for most smaller teams.

2. Re-think engine regulations with cost in mind. The current engine formula is way too expensive. It bloats costs for every team involved in the sport. Regardless of what formula they choose to go with, they need to re-think this with affordability in mind. Make simpler engines basically (and make them sound good FFS).

3. This might be somewhat controversial but ban the pay-driver system. With the above new revenue model, it shouldn't be necessary for any team to seek money from one of their drivers. This is a pet peeve of mine. You cannot call yourself the pinnacle of anything when you have a system in which someone can simply pay their way into the competition. Performance should be the one and only thing that can get a driver on the grid (and yes I know that there have always been pay-drivers).

4. Stop over-legislating the sport. Penalties shouldn't be given out for simple mistakes. They should be given for egregious errors or for situations where a driver gains an advantage by breaking the rules. The punishments must also be proportionate to the offenses. Too often we see penalties that basically have no effect and even more often we see heavy-handed penalties for small infractions. Stewardship and penalty decisions should not play such a huge role in the championship.

5. Remove any regulation on communication between the driver and the pit wall. This is a foolish and money-wasting endeavor. We have these high tech cars with all kinds of advanced telemetry and data collection software but we are banning the teams from sharing information during the race. This was a very entertaining part of the show; to hear drivers discuss strategy with the team and see the way that they were thinking during the race. Now it's basically radio silence or just someone complaining. It has dumbed down the sport IMO.

6. Bring back ground effects and work towards eliminating the DRS system. I had hoped that when DRS was implemented in 2011, it would simply be a stop-gap solution until they figured out a way to help the cars follow each other better through corners. Unfortunately, F1's leadership got too lazy and stopped looking for solutions. To me, DRS is too contrived and has watered down racing by taking one of the most difficult things to do (overtaking) and reducing it to the press of a button.

7. Put the sport on free TV, make it available for online streaming and just generally drop the "country club" mentality that is no longer appropriate for the sport. Instead of trying to keep people out, start trying to let people in. Make the sport as accessible as possible and it will grow exponentially.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 6:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Posts: 907
Location: Brazil
Much of the problem with current F1 is due to it staying relevant to road cars, something it cannot move away from anymore. The days where automobile giants' involvement in the sport was minimal and all most teams had to do to compete was to knock on Cosworth's door to buy their very own DFV V8 and fit it to a chassis developed and built inside a barn are long gone.

We have small turbo engines and hybrid technology because that's the direction where the road cars are heading, and they're heading in such direction because of ecological issues as well as drivability. If you changed the regs overnight and went back to, say, 1991, no manufacturer would invest in the sport apart from Ferrari.

The global economy also hasn't yet recovered from the 2008 crisis, which is significant because it neutered motorsport then and there. The impact on F1 was immediate, impact on Le Mans prototypes not so much because it was a two-horse race already before crisis struck and Peugeot was quickly replaced by Toyota, but GT racing which is what's left of "old school" in Le Mans suffered because the old GT1 cars became too expensive to run, leading to that very questionable FIA GT1 World Championship with very controversial rules and zero chance of success. The result? Mid-to-late-90s flourished with the variety of GT cars in the BPR championship (which eventually led to Mercedes single-handledly killing the old FIA GT because they decided it was a good idea to cheat and use a car designed as race car first and road car second instead of the opposite), mid-to-late-2000s flourished with the strong competition in the ALMS and FIA GT, and in the mid-2010s the "premium" GT class outside the WEC is an unregulated leftover of an older era kept relevant by artificial balancing and cheap costs (GT3), and manufacturers like Ferrari waste money building cars like the F12 berlinetta for nothing.

When it comes to machinery, I think motorsport is in the worst state it's ever been, but that's not due to electronics, hybrid powertrains or turbos like Jalopnik readers think, rather due to everyone's inability to spend money without going bankrupt overnight.

_________________
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:07 pm
Posts: 232
Location: Austin, USA
I would move to a Major League Baseball model with increased revenue sharing and a "cap floor" that every team has to spend. I wouldn't necessarily put in a hard cap like North American sports, but I might tax teams that spend OVER a certain amount of money (i.e. soft cap).

It's bad for the sport that two or three teams are the only ones that compete while the bottom continually drops out. And I love Ferrari, but I love F1 more so if the Scuderia wants to leave, arrivederci.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7798
I would bring in 2 as soon as possible.

1 Review the blue flag rule. They are all out there racing and overtaking backmarkers is part of driving, the same as having trucks and cyclists on the road.

2 get the tyres fixed so that they do not create a single lane track as they do today. Drivers will not attempt an overtake if they know that an abort spoils the rest of the lap because the tyres are covered in marbles, or worse, they did not make the bend due to loss of traction.


These go hand-in-hand to improve racing. Remember racers like Senna who in a slower could win a GP because they got through traffic better than some one who sat there and moaned on the radio and made hand signals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1135
My biggest issue with Formula One is that the actual racing is far from exciting on a consistent basis. We have great disparity between teams on budgets and performance. So reducing costs to a sane level would be my first priority, followed by more parity in the payments.

Formula One reached it's ceiling on performance back in the 1980's, and ever since then the regulations are re-written every few years to force it back down when the clever engineers find more performance. But those changes are major and catastrophic for smaller teams. Performance can be contained a lot cheaper, with simple devices such as engine air restrictors. But if 30 year old technology is able to deliver so much performance, why are teams spending insane amounts of money to tweak designs? For example the front wings are incredibly complex in geometry and construction, only because of restrictive aerodynamic handicaps further back in the car. If I was in charge I would mandate that the front and rear wings, as well as the complete underbody was standardized, and allow the teams free reign on the upper bodywork. Costs would plummet, each manufacturer could still construct a car that looks different than the others, yet the level of performance could be just as good as today's.

I would take today's regulations and throw them in the nearest bonfire, and any new rules would be 95% safety.

Formula One racing is entertainment, irresponsible, loud, and wasteful on resources. And the urban legend that there is some resemblance between a Formula One car and road cars should be trashed. manufacturers spend a heck of a lot more on their road car development, Formula One is just a small part of their advertising budget. We can talk about how rear view mirrors and paddle shifters were developed in racing first, but 99.9% of auto development comes from road car, racing contributes a very small amount.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 5:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:22 am
Posts: 1819
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Few things that should be simple but absolutely aren't.

Rebalance payments to teams. The 50/50 split of revenue between FOM and the teams is about right but the balance between the teams is way off. Rebalance it so that the team that wins ends up with about double the revenue of the team that loses. And by scrapping the 70mill that Ferrari gets for being Ferrari that can all be done without negatively affecting the top teams revenue too much (apart from Ferrari of course). Also pay down to the twelfth team, not ten. It won't necessarily attract new teams, but it won't actively discourage them like the current system does either.

Reduce restrictions on ALL regulations. Engines, energy recovery and use, aerodynamics and chassis. Perhaps bring back active suspension as it would without a doubt be far cheaper than the complicated mechanical set ups used currently. All a bit counter intuitive but it costs far more to find improvements in tiny gaps than it is to have your options wide open. Cheaper and far more interesting solutions to the problem of each years regulations, and after all Formula 1 is an engineering championship, let's get the focus back on engineering.

While we're at it why not instill a soft budget cap, over a certain amount (250 million or so) teams are charged 33c on every dollar spent. This money is then distributed evenly between all teams evenly the following year on top of the annual revenue.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Podiums: 1st Spa '16, 1st Bahrain '15, 1st China '14, 1st Malaysia '14
Championship position 2014: 13th | | 2015: 10th (heading the right way)
PF1 Autosport GP Predictor 2014: Second 2015: Second


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 6:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5870
Location: Nebraska, USA
I find it fascinating that many of you list the redistribution of money as the first thing that you would change. Why is it so difficult to understand that a more even distribution of the revenue is not going to suddenly make the Manors of this world competitive or even solvent. Nor are you ever going to achieve a series were everybody is competitive, unless you go to a spec series, and even then, there will be superior teams...and they won't include the Manors of racing. Figure it out for yourselves. Take the $70m of Ferrari's contracted money away from them and spread it amongst 11 teams...$6.4m per team, unless you choose to leave Ferrari out of the division... then it is $7m. That was not going to save Manor, or make any of the other bottom teams suddenly competitive beyond what they do without it. So take it, spread it out, then see what you have.

Now, if one wants to make real change, make the racing real once again. To hell with the gimmicks... make F1 the epitome of auto racing again. Quit playing games with the rules and regulations, let the teams develop the cars during the season, let them practice, let there be a competition between tire companies... and let those companies develop tires to be the best that they can make...don't force them to make tires that intentionally wear out. Quit playing games and let them go racing.

Will it be expensive, of course it will, but then it is not cheap now either. Just think how much money the teams have had to spend to develop all the new engine configurations that have been forced on them over the last couple of centuries. and NO more fiascos like they did in protecting the team that gets it "right" like they did for Mercedes. Of all the dumb-a$$ regulations, that has to be one of the dumbest.

Make the racing great, make the OWNERs give up a greater share of the revenue (F1 has been much too much lining the pockets of bernie the rat and his ilk)... and lets have some different track designers get involved in new tracks... enough of the Tilkedomes. (I'd love to know how much money bernie got under the table to push Tilke on new hosts)... bring back gravel traps while we are at it.

There are many issues with F1, the monies that Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Red Bull et al make is just a small part of story, and still, as I have argued often before, those teams bring extra money into the sport, something that needs to be remembered. bernie was not in the habit of giving money away... he knew the bottom line.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4548
Location: Michigan, USA
Blake wrote:
There are many issues with F1, the monies that Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Red Bull et al make is just a small part of story, and still, as I have argued often before, those teams bring extra money into the sport, something that needs to be remembered. bernie was not in the habit of giving money away... he knew the bottom line.

The bottom line is that he bribed them with that money so he could get more control over the sport.

As a fan of one of the above-mentioned teams, I see no reason they should get a bigger share of the distribution than anyone else. They'll get more prize money if they do better, they'll get more sponsorship because of who they are, and they'll sell more merchandise because of who they are. They can make do with the same equal share of the profits as everybody else - like every other legitimate sports league in the world. Do you think the Dallas Cowboys and the Buffalo Bills contribute the same amount of value to the NFL? No, but they get the same sized check.

Yes, the owners should definitely take a smaller cut of the profit, but I can't see a single good argument for not distributing the teams' share equally. More popular teams will reap the rewards of that popularity through the mechanisms available to any other sporting effort, while costing the less established teams nothing in the process.

_________________
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: Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2558
Location: UK
Blake wrote:
I find it fascinating that many of you list the redistribution of money as the first thing that you would change. Why is it so difficult to understand that a more even distribution of the revenue is not going to suddenly make the Manors of this world competitive or even solvent. Nor are you ever going to achieve a series were everybody is competitive, unless you go to a spec series, and even then, there will be superior teams...and they won't include the Manors of racing. Figure it out for yourselves. Take the $70m of Ferrari's contracted money away from them and spread it amongst 11 teams...$6.4m per team, unless you choose to leave Ferrari out of the division... then it is $7m. That was not going to save Manor, or make any of the other bottom teams suddenly competitive beyond what they do without it. So take it, spread it out, then see what you have.

Now, if one wants to make real change, make the racing real once again. To hell with the gimmicks... make F1 the epitome of auto racing again. Quit playing games with the rules and regulations, let the teams develop the cars during the season, let them practice, let there be a competition between tire companies... and let those companies develop tires to be the best that they can make...don't force them to make tires that intentionally wear out. Quit playing games and let them go racing.

Will it be expensive, of course it will, but then it is not cheap now either. Just think how much money the teams have had to spend to develop all the new engine configurations that have been forced on them over the last couple of centuries. and NO more fiascos like they did in protecting the team that gets it "right" like they did for Mercedes. Of all the dumb-a$$ regulations, that has to be one of the dumbest.

Make the racing great, make the OWNERs give up a greater share of the revenue (F1 has been much too much lining the pockets of bernie the rat and his ilk)... and lets have some different track designers get involved in new tracks... enough of the Tilkedomes. (I'd love to know how much money bernie got under the table to push Tilke on new hosts)... bring back gravel traps while we are at it.

There are many issues with F1, the monies that Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Red Bull et al make is just a small part of story, and still, as I have argued often before, those teams bring extra money into the sport, something that needs to be remembered. bernie was not in the habit of giving money away... he knew the bottom line.

There's a lot more than $70 million to re-distribute. it's not just the unique 'Ferrari' payment that is problem; the revenue distribution for constructors' championship positions is much too heavily skewed, as well as the other mysterious payment that Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes and McLaren get for which I don't quite understand the logic.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/123649

If the revenue were distributed uniformly then each team would get about $87 million, which is almost double what Manor received last year. No I wouldn't necessarily advocate an entirely flat distribution of revenue as there does need to be some incentive to finish higher in the championship, but I'd prefer that over the ridiculous system we have now.

I would also ask why do the likes of Ferrari and Red Bull bring more money into the sport? It is because they are the ones who compete for and win championships (or have done in the past) and that makes them popular. And why do they compete for championships? Because they have more money. Do you not see the vicious cycle here? Manor never even had a chance to become a major part of the sport. You complain vehemently about engine rules that protect Mercedes' competitive advantage yet have no problem with a revenue distribution model that does the same thing for Ferrari. Rather hypocritical don't you think?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Posts: 907
Location: Brazil
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Formula One reached it's ceiling on performance back in the 1980's, and ever since then the regulations are re-written every few years to force it back down when the clever engineers find more performance.


If anything is a urban legend, it's this. Yes the horsepower figures hit the four digits mark in the 80s but that was with engines that would blow up at any given moment and were built to last a single qualifying session. Today's engines make upwards of 700 bhp reliably and last multiple weekends of abuse.


Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Formula One racing is entertainment, irresponsible, loud, and wasteful on resources. And the urban legend that there is some resemblance between a Formula One car and road cars should be trashed. manufacturers spend a heck of a lot more on their road car development, Formula One is just a small part of their advertising budget. We can talk about how rear view mirrors and paddle shifters were developed in racing first, but 99.9% of auto development comes from road car, racing contributes a very small amount.


Wrong. The existence of cars like Lexus LF-A and McLaren 12C, heck even the old BMW M5 with the V10 engine easily disproves your argument. Ferrari's Manettino was an F1 development implemented in their road cars around the mid-2000s era as well. As long as there is manufacturer involvement in the sport, it will be used as a testing bed to improve the development of road cars, something not exclusive to F1 of course.

_________________
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1778
If you're concerned about costs, stop rewriting the rule book every 3-4 years. 2017 will see the 3rd different set of regulations in 5 seasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5870
Location: Nebraska, USA
GingerFurball wrote:
If you're concerned about costs, stop rewriting the rule book every 3-4 years. 2017 will see the 3rd different set of regulations in 5 seasons.


:thumbup: +1

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20994
GingerFurball wrote:
If you're concerned about costs, stop rewriting the rule book every 3-4 years. 2017 will see the 3rd different set of regulations in 5 seasons.

While I agree with the general sentiment, the last set of rules were poorly written and resulted in protecting Mercedes' lead when they did the best job in 2014. If nothing had changed we'd probably be looking at another three years of the same, which I don't think is good for F1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1531
I think they are going in the right direction by steering F1 toward being about entertainment.
eg.
“Every decision that will be made in the future – technical decisions, sporting decisions, economic decisions – will have to tick some boxes and those will be ‘does it make sport better? Does it make it more entertaining? Does it make it more economic?’

Real racing - cars that can overtake each other and circuits that are designed to provide some opportunities to overtake. Remove the artificial aids when real racing returns.
Making the cars faster round the corners and slower on the straights is not going to make the racing better.

Entertaining by making it more competitive, but also by encouraging the drivers to be a bigger part of the entertainment.

Save costs by writing the rules better - ie. Tighten the rules up so the cars are more even and any gains in car speed are going to cost a lot for small gains. It needs to make the drivers more important than the cars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 3767
GingerFurball wrote:
If you're concerned about costs, stop rewriting the rule book every 3-4 years. 2017 will see the 3rd different set of regulations in 5 seasons.

Rule changes are still necessary every now and then, regardless of costs


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1701
nixxxon wrote:
Ennis wrote:
nixxxon wrote:
There are some quick fixes...
Current PU's are very expensive, so the obvious one would be to set a fixed price per PU so the small teams can afford them, and the whole F1 costs are cut down... Another thing is, will the engine manufacturers agree... well thats the problem when they think they are bigger than the sport.


Hence, no quick fix. You need a whole bunch of people with varying agendas to agree for that to happen.

Don't know why they could not agree on this. I mean, isn't it interesting to research for modern, high efficent engines that are also affordable for the masses? So, newer and cheaper technologies and techniques for the engines would be welcome for the market.
Who wouldn't like an engine that is powerful, fuel efficient, and affordable/cheap, all at the same time?


The engine itself can be cheap in mass-production, the R&D involved in pushing the envelope is always going to be the issue.
Extreme example - if you invest £500million in the R&D of an engine, and £50million manufacturing 10 of them... you're going to be looking for £55mil+ per engine to recoup your cost. If you invest £500million in the R&D, then spend £500million manufacturing 100 of them.. suddenly its only £10mil+ per engine.

I agree with your concept, I just don't think it always works so nicely in the real world. Every extra piece of power & fuel efficiency comes at an R&D cost, and that cost needs to be recouped somewhere.

Zoue wrote:
No, I don't think that's true. It's a comparatively recent phenomenon


I disagree. I think we speak about it more, I think we hear about it more. It has always existed. Whereas they might now run an engine at x% to survive 5 races, they previously had to run an engine at x% just to survive a single race. There was 'always' a trade off of eating tyres and needing to pit more, versus saving tyres and not pitting. In the refuelling years again you had the same trade off of lifting & coasting to save fuel and prevent a trip to the pits. It has always been there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20994
Ennis wrote:
Zoue wrote:
No, I don't think that's true. It's a comparatively recent phenomenon


I disagree. I think we speak about it more, I think we hear about it more. It has always existed. Whereas they might now run an engine at x% to survive 5 races, they previously had to run an engine at x% just to survive a single race. There was 'always' a trade off of eating tyres and needing to pit more, versus saving tyres and not pitting. In the refuelling years again you had the same trade off of lifting & coasting to save fuel and prevent a trip to the pits. It has always been there.
Sorry, don't agree with that at all. There have been more than a few drivers in recent years who have complained that they can't push and are driving well within their limits. And there's a massive difference between looking after an engine for a single race and having to make sure it lasts for five, not to mention the absurd penalties when a gearbox or an engine needs replacing.

Alonso's even said that if the new cars don't bring driving enjoyment back he'll consider quitting, as he finds it no fun having to drive at less than 100% capacity. And he's not alone in that, not by a long shot. It's very much a relatively recent thing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7798
Talking to someone this morning and he had a sugestion on keeping the price down and the engine relevant.

Cars can use 4 or 6 cyl engines of any configuration, as long as it is a standard production block, crank and head, which may be modified to a rule sheet.

I honestly can not decide if I am for or against.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1701
Zoue wrote:
Sorry, don't agree with that at all. There have been more than a few drivers in recent years who have complained that they can't push and are driving well within their limits. And there's a massive difference between looking after an engine for a single race and having to make sure it lasts for five, not to mention the absurd penalties when a gearbox or an engine needs replacing.

Alonso's even said that if the new cars don't bring driving enjoyment back he'll consider quitting, as he finds it no fun having to drive at less than 100% capacity. And he's not alone in that, not by a long shot. It's very much a relatively recent thing


There's not a massive different between looking after an engine for a single race and making sure it lasts for 5, really. For both you find a threshold which the engine will work at and you run it. Bear in mind the lack of reliability in the 80s, I'd be very surprised if their % threshold to last a single race was higher than the % threshold for engines to last 5 races nowadays. In the past we seen drivers physically wrestling cars, being physically drained, we had the thrill of how new and outlandish this all looked and we thought of the constant threat of death looming over the grid... so we didn't pay attention to the fact that their engines were turned down or they were making sure not to take too much life out their tyres.

I do agree that I want drivers pushing to the limit btw, I just don't believe them not pushing to the limit is a new thing. We just now have slightly different reasons for it and it annoys us more than it used to.

I understand what Alonso is saying, but his idea of the golden years is most fans idea of the most boring era of F1. All the gimmicks we now have are due to us trying to get over how boring Alonso's favourite era was.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 3767
As far as I know, tyre/fuel saving existed since almost forever in terms of race strategy and only the refuelling era that started in the mid 90s allowed the cars to run without fuel saving and without tyre saving. Also the 00s long lasting bridgestones along with TC helped in eliminating the need for tyre saving.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:11 am
Posts: 884
No wings.

A modern version of:

Image



That and a sharing of money that is 100% based on performance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20994
moby wrote:
Talking to someone this morning and he had a sugestion on keeping the price down and the engine relevant.

Cars can use 4 or 6 cyl engines of any configuration, as long as it is a standard production block, crank and head, which may be modified to a rule sheet.

I honestly can not decide if I am for or against.

Do you mean standard as in a manufacturers parts bin, or a bespoke F1 unit? Because I can see problems with the likes of e.g. Ferrari agreeing to compromise their own engines to use something generic?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20994
Ennis wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Sorry, don't agree with that at all. There have been more than a few drivers in recent years who have complained that they can't push and are driving well within their limits. And there's a massive difference between looking after an engine for a single race and having to make sure it lasts for five, not to mention the absurd penalties when a gearbox or an engine needs replacing.

Alonso's even said that if the new cars don't bring driving enjoyment back he'll consider quitting, as he finds it no fun having to drive at less than 100% capacity. And he's not alone in that, not by a long shot. It's very much a relatively recent thing


There's not a massive different between looking after an engine for a single race and making sure it lasts for 5, really. For both you find a threshold which the engine will work at and you run it. Bear in mind the lack of reliability in the 80s, I'd be very surprised if their % threshold to last a single race was higher than the % threshold for engines to last 5 races nowadays. In the past we seen drivers physically wrestling cars, being physically drained, we had the thrill of how new and outlandish this all looked and we thought of the constant threat of death looming over the grid... so we didn't pay attention to the fact that their engines were turned down or they were making sure not to take too much life out their tyres.

I do agree that I want drivers pushing to the limit btw, I just don't believe them not pushing to the limit is a new thing. We just now have slightly different reasons for it and it annoys us more than it used to.

I understand what Alonso is saying, but his idea of the golden years is most fans idea of the most boring era of F1. All the gimmicks we now have are due to us trying to get over how boring Alonso's favourite era was.

But engines manufactured for a race were operating at the peak of their performance envelope, while those which have to run much longer are obviously built with far greater tolerances in mind. Last year everybody was crunching the numbers on how Lewis had an advantage over Nico by virtue of his extra engine at the end of the season, and unless I'm mistaken even Lewis himself said the extra unit allowed him to push more, so clearly there must be a measurable difference.

And we've had so many drivers complaining about how the current tyres don't allow you to push that it's a bit King Canute to ignore it. If drivers push on the recent generation Pirellis, they shorten their lifespan by a race-changing amount. So they have to constantly pace themselves in ways they never had to before. Of course tyre management has been there, but it's the extent to which it has dictated the racing that has been the biggest change in recent years. The very fact that Pirelli have been ordered to change their construction to allow closer racing without destroying the tyres is a bit of a giveaway.

Recently Mansell's 1987 win came up in another thread and it would simply not have been possible with today's generation of tyres. There's no way a driver would have been able to push that hard for that long, breaking that many lap records, without them falling apart. And that's one of the more noticeable differences with the racing today and the point I was making. Drivers pushing to the limit is something we rarely see these days


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 3767
Alex53 wrote:
That and a sharing of money that is 100% based on performance.

That would increase the gap between the top teams and the bottom end teams, thats what you want?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7798
Zoue wrote:
moby wrote:
Talking to someone this morning and he had a sugestion on keeping the price down and the engine relevant.

Cars can use 4 or 6 cyl engines of any configuration, as long as it is a standard production block, crank and head, which may be modified to a rule sheet.

I honestly can not decide if I am for or against.

Do you mean standard as in a manufacturers parts bin, or a bespoke F1 unit? Because I can see problems with the likes of e.g. Ferrari agreeing to compromise their own engines to use something generic?


It's just something we were talking about. It came to because the old BMW turbo was based on the road engine block.

I think the idea is literally from the parts bin. There would have to be allowances for bore size to get everyone to 1600 or what ever, and a lot of room for improvement on the head and flow, but with a rev limit of 12000 I would think there would be enough cranks and blocks that would just need "tidying up".

Even if Ferrari did not want to use the V6, they have access to the Fiat bin or Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Lancia, Maserati etc.

This levies it as a competitively easy option for others to supply engines, as long as they can source the other parts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:11 am
Posts: 884
nixxxon wrote:
Alex53 wrote:
That and a sharing of money that is 100% based on performance.

That would increase the gap between the top teams and the bottom end teams, thats what you want?


And giving certain top teams extra money regardless of performance is better?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 551
nixxxon wrote:
Alex53 wrote:
That and a sharing of money that is 100% based on performance.

That would increase the gap between the top teams and the bottom end teams, thats what you want?

No it wouldn’t – you can distribute the money however you like. Of course you would need to think carefully how you split the money, but for arguments sake whether you have a 1% step in prize value per position, or 10% step per position both share the prize money purely on performance – one would have a much bigger gap between the top and bottom teams than the other.

TI believe the EPL for instance recently redistributed tv revenue much more evenly between the premiership teams, but still by final position in the table, which has led to the lower teams having much healthier transfer budgets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:34 pm
Posts: 107
Location: Ohio, USA
There will be no quick fixes, as any changes to the technical regulations or the economics of F1 are going to be fraught with existing stakeholders defending their interests. However, I definitely think that some fixes would have quick results in improving the sport. Fundamentally, prize money needs to be more equitably distributed and the sport needs to be more attractive to potential sponsors. Additionally, the technical regulations need to be more attractive to major manufacturers as well as promoting competitive racing. Many have touches on these good ideas so mine would be:

- get rid of of the vast majority of the front and rear wings. I don't know how many millions each team plows into researching and producing these things which we find on practically zero road cars. They of course also contribute to the inability of cars to pass because you can't follow the car in front without backing off because of the understeer produced by dirty air washing off the car in front. As a byproduct, the tyres wear faster and we have cheesy gimmicks like DRS to paper over these issues.

Solution - prohibit wings or standardize them to a great degree, i.e., limit them to a single plane with one cascade element or something like that. I'm thinking they shouldn't be much more complex than the wings we saw about 25 years ago.

- allow the development of road car-relevant parts like ABS, traction control, active suspensions, ect. Yes these parts will be costly, but I believe more manufacturers would be willing to invest in F1 as more than a marketing tool if they can also use it as a platform for R&D technologies they can implement in their main products.

Solution - eliminate the current prohibitions on such advanced parts.

- more equitable distribution of F1 revenues. I don't necessarily have specifics, but eliminating the historical payments to Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Renault and whoever else is basic sporting fairness. Yes, I get that their involvement in the sport has helped to bolster it but it's simply unfair, particularly given how team funding is closely linked with potential success.

Solutions - increase marketing/promotion in places that actually have money(like uh the US), eliminate historical payments, make all teams on the grid eligible for Constructor's Championship payouts, start giving a damn about digital marketing, allow access to past seasons via digital content, make the fan experience at the track worth experiencing (take a look at what NASCAR does and what IndyCar is trying to do), stop holding popular venues hostage to ridiculous hosting fees...I could go on and on about how F1 ignores all sorts of potential revenue streams (I'm attributing most of this to lazy-ass Bernie, who'd rather get a race in some impoverished oil dictatorship while on a cozy junket) that many other major sports organizations have been exploiting for years. Basically, competently promote the damn sport. Apparently I do have some specifics.

-simplify/modify some of the sporting rules

Solutions - bring back harder tyre compounds that need not be micromanaged to the extent the Pirellis need to. Pirelli, incidentally, has done a great job of doing what they've been asked to do, but what they were asked to do made little sense. Ban all radio communications except for instructions relating to track/race safety BUT you may have unlimited communication whilst in the pit lane. If you can change parts on the car I see no reason to allow unfettered comms during this time. Allow more in-season testing to be held and have the logistics completely funded by F1. Televise the testing too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:22 am
Posts: 1819
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Alex53 wrote:
No wings.

A modern version of:


Image



That and a sharing of money that is 100% based on performance.


I personally can't think of anything worst and wouldn't be surprised if it killed F1. For me formula 1 IS aerodynamics, every now and then they changed a team name, or drivers come and go they might even change engine regulations which is exciting for a bit... But the premise of modern Formula 1 is "make us a car as fast as possible, but you cannot do the following things" and it's up to the teams to engineer a solution to that problem. The fastest way around a circuit is to maximise your cars acceleration in all axes. Without aero you can't do that

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Podiums: 1st Spa '16, 1st Bahrain '15, 1st China '14, 1st Malaysia '14
Championship position 2014: 13th | | 2015: 10th (heading the right way)
PF1 Autosport GP Predictor 2014: Second 2015: Second


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: Bing [Bot], oz_karter 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