planetf1.com

It is currently Fri Nov 28, 2014 12:12 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
Hello again.

First of all, I want to say that I do not wish to bother people around here with this. Please feel free of NOT reading or posting if you feel offended or anything bad about my posts. I just want to make a thorough objective analysis about my proposal in the most scientific way I can leaving aside personal rants.

Said that, I proceed now to explain the features that, for me, the pinnacle of motorsports should have:

1) Openness: anyone should be allowed to participate. When too many people wants to get in, then, and only then, a selection system should be used based on performance (pre-qualify).
2) Technology Development: F1 should be a technological race (possibly mixed with human driving talent) where participants should be encouraged to be creative and develop new technology in the widest possible range of areas. The successful new technology should benefit humans somehow (basically in the area of ground transportation).
3) Safety: Events should be safe for drivers, crew, spectators and people nearby. Damage to third party property of any kind should be avoided.
4) Spectacularity: Spectators should have a very good time attending or watching on TV the racing events. The most skilled driver/car should provide the best show due precisely to those skills. TV should show mainly the best performances.
5) Financial viability: GP organizers and the FIA should be able to cover all costs of running and sanctioning events. Participants should be allowed to inject sponsors' money for technological development. The FIA should support the most consistent participants to guarantee their continuity.
6) Transparency: Cheatting should be easily spotted not only by racing authorities but by teams, drivers and spectators too.
7) Sportiveness: Drivers with better driving skills (ability, reactions, courage, intelligence, knowledge, etc.) than others should tend to consistently have better results when using similar cars.

From the above items, I can see that current F1 complies only with 3) and a little bit of 2) 4) and 5). How much? that is debatable, but the point is that a lot is missing.

For years, many rules have been changed to try and improve F1 but all of them have failed somehow. I can list a lot of bad rules that have been very unpopular among the extreme purists of fans. Some fans (forumers) propose changes that are simply not followed by most because they concentrate on certain aspects of the "formula" and do not see the whole picture. I think F1 authorities have been doing this too and that is why every time they plug up a hole they necessarily open another.

So, I think it is time to redefine F1 to fully comply with what I think the Pinnacle of Motorsports should be. My proposal (those who know me know it well) includes the reversing of the starting grid in the races, but that is not the only thing that is proposed. Like it or not, F1 has many defects that can be seen as inevitable costs that produce the "best" balance that has been possible to achieve. If you are against the idea (of reversing the grid) you may think of it as part of the costs. But I feel that this "cost" balances very much in favour when one can measure the amount of benefits of the FULL proposal. Let's see what you can contribute (or criticize) to this plan and, maybe, people closer to F1 can come up with even better ideas to be implemented in reality and thus find a better balance of things.

The new proposed general F1 rules. I will write only the idea. Of course many more details need to be worked to produce the new set of rules. Rules that need no change but apply are not commented:

1 Technical:
1.1 Any car is allowed provided:
1.1.1 Its height, length and width does not exceed a maximum.
1.1.2 It can carry a predefined standardized water tank for ballast.
1.1.3 It does not deteriorate the physical conditions of the track or other cars. Turbine air streams are considered hampering to others.
1.1.4 It is strong enough to keep all its parts en case of normal contact with other cars.
1.1.5 It complies with the safety rules.
1.2 General
1.2.1 The Concorde agreement is no longer valid.
1.2.2 New technology must be reported to FIA Authorities in general terms to check its compliance with safety regulations. This process must be publicly available at all times for everyone.
1.3 Aerodynamics
1.3.1 Any aero part must have a shape with a minimum radius of curvature of 5 cm. This number may change in subsequent years and must be kept unchanged during the full year.
1.3.2 Aero parts may be movable but this movement may not breach the previous point.
1.4 Weight
1.4.1 The weight of the car is free.
1.4.2 The weight of the water ballast must be kept at all times during events.
1.5 Power Unit
1.5.1 Any power unit of any size or technology is allowed provided it complies with safety rules.
1.5.2 Any type of Torque control is allowed.
1.5.3 Any fuel system is allowed provided it complies with safety rules.
1.5.4 Any Energy recovery system is allowed provided it complies with safety rules.
1.6 Fuel tanks
1.6.1 Any kind of fuel tank is allowed provided it complies with safety rules.
1.6.2 Any kind of electric energy accumulator is allowed provided it complies with safety rules.
1.7 Tyres
1.7.1 Any number or type or make is allowed.
1.8 Transmission
1.8.1 Any kind allowed.
1.9 Electronics
1.9.1 Any kind allowed.
1.10 Cockpit
1.10.1 Any kind, open or closed cockpit, is allowed provided it complies with safety rules.
1.11 Safety
1.11.1 The survival cell must pass the crash tests.
1.11.2 Medical and support crew must be able to extract a driver from its seat quickly even if he is unconscious.
1.11.3 The survival cell must protect the driver (if any), the data recorder and all dangerous fluids.
1.11.4 Energy sources must be highly commercially available to the public.
1.11.5 All parts of the car must be kept under a fixed limit in øC.
1.11.6 Nuclear reactors and radioactive materials are forbidden.
1.11.7 Fluids must be stored in super-strong recipients.
1.11.8 Car parts must be strongly attached to the car. In the event of a car losing any of its parts, the authorities must apply proper penalty.
1.11.9 Many other safety rules apply but, in general, these must not be restrictive to specific dimensions or so, instead, safety rules must specify what need to be achieved and not how.

2 Sporting:
2.1 World Championship.
2.1.1 The drivers' championship title is taken by the driver that obtains more points in GP events.
2.1.2 The constructors' championship is given to the car owner that obtains more points in GP events.
2.2 Subchampionships.
2.2.1 A drivers' and a constructors' subchampionships are run in parallel to the world championship in two modalities:
2.2.2 Free track subchampionship. Total points accumulated during Saturdays.
2.2.3 Race day championship. Total points accumulated on race days.
2.3 GP events
2.3.1 GP events can be organized by anyone anywhere in the world anytime except when another GP event is already announced.
2.3.2 Participants can choose which events they want to attend.
2.3.3 Format
2.3.3.1 Friday:
2.3.3.1.1 As needed, pre-Friday sessions of 1 hour are given to discard 10 participants in each.
2.3.3.1.2 A free timed session of 1 hour is given.
2.3.3.1.3 The top 30 participants pass to the next round. The rest go to Saturday's Q3.
2.3.3.1.4 A second free track session of 1 hour is given.
2.3.3.1.5 The top 20 participants pass to the next round. The rest go to Saturday's Q3.
2.3.3.1.6 A third free track session of 1 hour is given.
2.3.3.1.7 The top 10 participants pass to Q2 directly but can use the track during Q3, the rest go to Saturday's Q3.
2.3.3.2 Saturday
2.3.3.2.1 Q3 is run for 1 hour.
2.3.3.2.2 The top 10 from Fryday plus the top 20 of the rest pass. The rest cannot participate in Sunday race.
2.3.3.2.3 Q2 is run for 30 minutes.
2.3.3.2.4 The top 20 pass to Q1. The rest go to Sunday race.
2.3.3.2.5 Q1 is run for 15 minutes.
2.3.3.3 Sunday
2.3.3.3.1 The starting grid is formed according to the current World Championship standings reversed.
2.3.3.3.2 Races are run to any duration according to the GP organizers announcements.
2.3.4 Points awarded to participants and car owners:
2.3.4.1 First place takes 1 point for each dollar of the money prize announced for first place.
2.3.4.2 Place number n (n>1) takes 75% of the points given to place n-1 rounded up to 3 significant digits.
2.3.4.3 Friday cut determines places 41st to last.
2.3.4.4 All participants, who have payed their entry fee, obtain points even if they don't make the Friday cut.
2.3.4.5 Points are awarded for qualifying and for race results.
2.3.4.6 When 'n' participants tie they are given the same amount of points and count as 'n' places for the next place. For example, 2 participants tie in 10th place then the next place is considered 12th and is given points as if there was an 11th place.
2.3.4.7 Drivers are allowed to change any part of their cars during events. Even they can change to another car owned by someone else. The owner of the car that crosses the finish line is the one that is awarded the prize and points.

3 Financial:
3.1 Participants must pay their entry fee to a GP three months in advance to the race.
3.2 GP organizers must pay the FIA their sanctioning fee 4 months in advance to the race.
3.3 TV revenue of each GP is managed by the FIA and is used for the corresponding GP's money prizes and for support of the expenses of car owners of that GP only.
3.4 GP organizers must announce the money prize in advance so that drivers can choose to enter or not soon.
3.5 Car owners that complete half the race will share in equal parts the money that the FIA assigned for expenses.


Some of the consequences that I can foresee:

Such a free set of rules will surely force people to invest in making their cars faster and more reliable. So, if you want to win, you must have a good car at least. Good cars are expensive but surely some people can make good cars with less money. Being efficient is also great for humanity and the sport. Having a really good driver is one form of being successful so, people should hire really good drivers regardless of their nationality or sponsorship. Of course everything would be allowed and pay drivers could participate too but they will have to show real skill to succeed.

The water ballast, equal to all cars, reduces risks to safe levels and is easy to modify. Cars designed in this formula would be real super cars. Just imagine how these cars would run without the water tanks. All the technology created for these cars would be really useful for ground transportation industry. Successful developers would be able to sell their inventions to car manufacturers (if they are not).

Reversing the grid has been discussed enough before but I want just to stress that, without it, races would be processional. Reverse grids, as described above, force drivers to actually have a difficult job and have really good skills. Since driver aids would be allowed, this need for skills is accentuated, not reduced as many think. If a driver has some additional aid, the rest MUST compensate it with even more skill and guts. It may happen that ONE driver has a super easy ride because his car is far superior to the rest, but everyone else will have to struggle a lot if they want to finish ahead. Remember this super car would tend to start races from behind so, the show is guaranteed for all of us.

A lot can be said still but it might be better to see what you think first.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 3118
Disagree with a few bits, but especially your qualifying system.

While this system and Pirelli don't agree so much, I think it is one of the better systems I've seen. Much more exciting to know you'll have cars on track within minutes than waiting for an hour for them to come out 10 minutes from the end.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:14 pm
Posts: 2460
Definition:
Formula One is defined to be IF backwards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
So many of your ideas are contradictory or impossible. This is the real world.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:44 pm
Posts: 800
Obviously a lot of thought and effort went into the OP, and while I appreciate it is just an idea there are numerous flaws.

Qualifying for one sounds ridiculously complicated! and how would you make sure people didn't purposely qualify slowly? How many cars are meant to qualify for the race? Anything more than 26 IMO is unsafe, which would mean that there would be upwards of 10 cars not qualifying, wasting their money and time.

Qualifying is a tough nut to crack, but I think the current system has a reasonable balance between fairness and entertainment value.

Free development would only work with a budget cap which allowed all teams a level playing field. Without one we would be left with a championship where the richest team wins. You could argue that's kind of the case today, but at least the margins between the teams are close.

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


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
Thank you all for your replies.


mac_d wrote:
Disagree with a few bits, but especially your qualifying system.

While this system and Pirelli don't agree so much, I think it is one of the better systems I've seen. Much more exciting to know you'll have cars on track within minutes than waiting for an hour for them to come out 10 minutes from the end.

The exact length of the sessions can vary. The idea of the system is to allow the best performers to keep on knowing better the track or using several drivers for testing. Perhaps 30 min is better.
Eva09 wrote:
Definition:
Formula One is defined to be IF backwards.

IF F1 listened to Fans For Once...
ashley313 wrote:
So many of your ideas are contradictory or impossible. This is the real world.

Please name one...
coulthards chin wrote:
Obviously a lot of thought and effort went into the OP, and while I appreciate it is just an idea there are numerous flaws.

Qualifying for one sounds ridiculously complicated! and how would you make sure people didn't purposely qualify slowly? How many cars are meant to qualify for the race? Anything more than 26 IMO is unsafe, which would mean that there would be upwards of 10 cars not qualifying, wasting their money and time.

Qualifying is a tough nut to crack, but I think the current system has a reasonable balance between fairness and entertainment value.

Free development would only work with a budget cap which allowed all teams a level playing field. Without one we would be left with a championship where the richest team wins. You could argue that's kind of the case today, but at least the margins between the teams are close.

No one would give up their WDC place for a grid slot. I think.

The proposed Qualy format is based on the current with the difference that they run for points. The fairness/entertainment balance is the same, I think.

As it is said in 2) F1 should promote Technological developments. A "level playing field" goes in the opposite direction. The best technology should be allowed. If you can't afford to have the latest tech then you should compete with what you can, but it does not imply you will not be the fastest. Efficient investments should produce better results. A (relatively) "poor" car owner can use a cheap car but with a super driver and get decent results that should attract more sponsors that would allow him to improve his car and so on. Thus, the best drivers are going to be needed very much.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
readonly wrote:
2) Technology Development: F1 should be a technological race (possibly mixed with human driving talent) where participants should be encouraged to be creative and develop new technology in the widest possible range of areas. The successful new technology should benefit humans somehow (basically in the area of ground transportation).

4) Spectacularity: Spectators should have a very good time attending or watching on TV the racing events. The most skilled driver/car should provide the best show due precisely to those skills. TV should show mainly the best performances.

6) Transparency: Cheatting should be easily spotted not only by racing authorities but by teams, drivers and spectators too.

7) Sportiveness: Drivers with better driving skills (ability, reactions, courage, intelligence, knowledge, etc.) than others should tend to consistently have better results when using similar cars.

A technology race makes it impossible for "all" to compete because "all" can't afford to develop at the same rate and to the same extent. A technology race means opening up the rules for more creativity, and because not all can afford to do the same, the "spectacle" is diminished by procession. If you want creative innovation, there is no easy way to spot cheating for anyone involved, because the definition of creative innovation in F1 is treading closely to the limit of the rules. Drivers will never have similar cars when you maximize creative innovation.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's why we have what we have.

Designers build cars to be fast, reliable, and easy to work on. Efficiency doesn't matter to them. THere are only a handful of guys who can lead design teams capable of building cars that can compete with each other. There isn't enough talent to go round, and there few replacements in the pipeline for "the old guard" and its thinking.

I stopped reading your rules after water tank for ballast, sorry.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 1553
Location: UK
readonly wrote:
IF F1 listened to Fans For Once...

F1 does listen to the fans. That's why we have DRS. The fans called for more overtaking and it was granted. Of course what we didn't specify was that we actually want a specific quantity of overtaking, and that it has to be the right sort of overtaking. Otherwise it's 'fake' and artificial'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 5137
Well I confess I have not read your rules all the way through but what I will say is that I think we are currently in a golden age for exciting racing. 6 out of the last 7 years we have had great tittle battles with 5 different champions and 5 other guys who could have won in that period. Yes some things could be improved but I don't think now is the time for wholesale changes. My main fear with your formula would be there would be a big discrepancy between the pace of the cars.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2242
Location: Perth, Australia
Open design regulations would cost the sport. It'd become overwhelmingly more expensive. Teams would have to expand into greater areas of research to try and maximise every single part of the car. This isn't like it is now, where teams put a lot of work into the wings, sidepods, exhaust layout and floor. This would be every single millimetre of surface area on the vehicle. Of course, the team with the most money to spend would come out on top and - sooner rather than later - the teams with smaller budgets would have to fall out.

There's no point spending hundreds of millions of dollars (I wouldn't expect less than $1bn from the top team/s per year. They've spent $400 million with closed regulations before) if you're not going to win. With this type of spending, prize money would have to be enormous. Which means entry fees would have to be enormous. It spirals out of control. If one team decides to spend their billion whilst all the others spend 1/5 of that, then one team ends up dominating. Viewers get bored and stop watching, then sponsors decide to either drastically slash their support or pull out all together.

We'd have machines being driven by supercomputers and teams spending more than small nations have at their disposal. Formula One was killing itself half a decade ago with its outlandish spending - this concept (if anybody decided to give it ago, which I seriously doubt) - would last until the board of directors of each team looked into how much it was going to cost to survive a single season.

With these open regulations, what safety tests are offered to make sure each car is 'safe'? You couldn't apply the same test to every car, surely. They'd all be so very different.

If it took off, I imagine we'd see a pattern similar to this:

1st year: A grid, let's say for arguments sake it's full. (50 teams)

2nd year: Most teams that didn't do well simply couldn't afford to try again. (15 teams)

3rd year: Spending at the front continues and smaller budget teams fall by the wayside even more. 5 teams remain. With 5 teams, sponsors pull out. Nobody wants to watch 10 (did you say how many cars a team could run? I don't remember. I'll assume the current rules stand) cars driving around, especially when it's the same ones winning every time. With teams now receiving very little funding, most pull out. Only the ones left for the next season are those with something to prove. (3 teams)

4th year: Faced with immense financial spending, the top team pulls out with its head high. No series could exist with two teams and the others follow suit.

4 years would be very generous, as well.

_________________
Image
I also have one of these.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:00 pm
Posts: 605
mikeyg123 wrote:
Well I confess I have not read your rules all the way through but what I will say is that I think we are currently in a golden age for exciting racing. 6 out of the last 7 years we have had great tittle battles with 5 different champions and 5 other guys who could have won in that period. Yes some things could be improved but I don't think now is the time for wholesale changes. My main fear with your formula would be there would be a big discrepancy between the pace of the cars.


I agree, but please don't use those words. Or else, people will start mentioning about the senna era and how they miss the good old days and this thread would go off topic

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 2334
The reverse grid order is interesting. Sprint car racing on short oval tracks as I watched it, used reverse order starting, and the best/fastest usually came through the field to win. But this is purely an impression; I have no stats on that.

In F1 though, it seems that the best teams/packages deserve to start at the front, and not have the danger of having to overtake the slower/rest. Championships are only between the top few anyway, and the racing imo is exciting enough as it is.

I like your ideas on freer tech regs that allow engineering experimentation. Today's same-engine layouts, configs, remove so much of interest. The cars might as well have anonymous Frigidaire motors; there is so little interest in the machines, so much on the celebrities in the cockpits. But I suppose the percentage of tv audiences that are interested in people/celebs outnumbers those who are interested in the tech side. Simple accounting.

Basically imo the designers, team staff should get paid more then the drivers. maybe at the same hourly rate!!! They form most of the performance equation, work longer and harder, and get hardly any/no publicity. But if I was running a media business I'd go bust overnight.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 110
I like your free-spirit on the rules philosphy, but it will never happen in a million years because of safety, budgetary and techincal issues.

Ground effect, for example, was banned for safety reasons (cars suddenly losing the ground effect and flying off). You also say "Turbine air streams are considered hampering to others", but it is:
a) impossible to have a laminar flow behind a car in a wind tunnel (perhaps you can say it must be xx% laminar, but then there will be a million loop holes)
b) even more impossible to have a laminar flow behind a car when it's going around a corner

Unrestricted budgets, along with unrestricted technical development (and potentially unrestricted testing) means a team like Ferrari and Red Bull will be ahead of the rest of the pack by a much bigger margin then any team manages today.

Finally, the OP says "Openness: anyone should be allowed to participate. When too many people wants to get in, then, and only then, a selection system should be used based on performance (pre-qualify)." Do you mean every race, someone new can participate? Or every season? Because HRT's entry was rumoured to have been available for £500k, which isn't that much by F1 budget-standards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
Hi again

I'm sorry to disagree with your views.
ashley313 wrote:
A technology race makes it impossible for "all" to compete because "all" can't afford to develop at the same rate and to the same extent. A technology race means opening up the rules for more creativity, and because not all can afford to do the same, the "spectacle" is diminished by procession. If you want creative innovation, there is no easy way to spot cheating for anyone involved, because the definition of creative innovation in F1 is treading closely to the limit of the rules. Drivers will never have similar cars when you maximize creative innovation.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's why we have what we have.

Designers build cars to be fast, reliable, and easy to work on. Efficiency doesn't matter to them. THere are only a handful of guys who can lead design teams capable of building cars that can compete with each other. There isn't enough talent to go round, and there few replacements in the pipeline for "the old guard" and its thinking.

I stopped reading your rules after water tank for ballast, sorry.

About procession, please read 2.3.3.3.1.

Different car owners can't get equally competitive cars. I know. But that is good, I think. You know that participants get involved in F1 with different levels of ambition. Ferrari, McLaren and so, go for wins and the WDC. Others are comfortable with a top ten. Others are happy just being part of the "pinnacle of motorsports". Aren't you one of the latter? My point is that people want to be there competing and trying to beat others even if they have an inferior car just to show themselves or their sponsors that they are really good and that with similar amounts of money they can do much better than others. Then, they can ask for extra money to improve their cars and be more competitive. If the richest car maker is not winning, they will surely make changes either driver or technical crew. This dynamics guarantee that only the best are there struggling to do their best effort.

Now, why are there many levels of ambition? because different people take different levels of revenue from winning. Ferrari can sell road cars better and this represents a lot of money. Force India can prove that India has force. Williams can get sponsors to keep on doing what he loves and enjoy his succesful developments. Red Bull can make everyone adict to their drinks and make money. HRT can have some fun surviving in the F1 jungle.

From this we can have a lot of fun seeing how many different technologies and budgets compete.

What is bad for you about water tanks?

j man wrote:
readonly wrote:
IF F1 listened to Fans For Once...

F1 does listen to the fans. That's why we have DRS. The fans called for more overtaking and it was granted. Of course what we didn't specify was that we actually want a specific quantity of overtaking, and that it has to be the right sort of overtaking. Otherwise it's 'fake' and artificial'.

Exactly, we need a NON artificial system.

mikeyg123 wrote:
Well I confess I have not read your rules all the way through but what I will say is that I think we are currently in a golden age for exciting racing. 6 out of the last 7 years we have had great tittle battles with 5 different champions and 5 other guys who could have won in that period. Yes some things could be improved but I don't think now is the time for wholesale changes. My main fear with your formula would be there would be a big discrepancy between the pace of the cars.

Yes, but it has all been artificial and, very likely, results are being controlled due to lack of transparency.

Toby. wrote:
Open design regulations would cost the sport. It'd become overwhelmingly more expensive. Teams would have to expand into greater areas of research to try and maximise every single part of the car. This isn't like it is now, where teams put a lot of work into the wings, sidepods, exhaust layout and floor. This would be every single millimetre of surface area on the vehicle. Of course, the team with the most money to spend would come out on top and - sooner rather than later - the teams with smaller budgets would have to fall out.

There's no point spending hundreds of millions of dollars (I wouldn't expect less than $1bn from the top team/s per year. They've spent $400 million with closed regulations before) if you're not going to win. With this type of spending, prize money would have to be enormous. Which means entry fees would have to be enormous. It spirals out of control. If one team decides to spend their billion whilst all the others spend 1/5 of that, then one team ends up dominating. Viewers get bored and stop watching, then sponsors decide to either drastically slash their support or pull out all together.

We'd have machines being driven by supercomputers and teams spending more than small nations have at their disposal. Formula One was killing itself half a decade ago with its outlandish spending - this concept (if anybody decided to give it ago, which I seriously doubt) - would last until the board of directors of each team looked into how much it was going to cost to survive a single season.

With these open regulations, what safety tests are offered to make sure each car is 'safe'? You couldn't apply the same test to every car, surely. They'd all be so very different.

If it took off, I imagine we'd see a pattern similar to this:

1st year: A grid, let's say for arguments sake it's full. (50 teams)

2nd year: Most teams that didn't do well simply couldn't afford to try again. (15 teams)

3rd year: Spending at the front continues and smaller budget teams fall by the wayside even more. 5 teams remain. With 5 teams, sponsors pull out. Nobody wants to watch 10 (did you say how many cars a team could run? I don't remember. I'll assume the current rules stand) cars driving around, especially when it's the same ones winning every time. With teams now receiving very little funding, most pull out. Only the ones left for the next season are those with something to prove. (3 teams)

4th year: Faced with immense financial spending, the top team pulls out with its head high. No series could exist with two teams and the others follow suit.

4 years would be very generous, as well.

I don't think so.

As I said above, everyone has different interests in being part of F1. Some want to win at any cost but spending money does not always means to win. People will eventually reduce their cost whenever the revenue of winning is less than the costs. Things will naturally take the right level.

In you hypothetical scenario, suppose there are only 10 participants left. Wouldn't it be tempting for many to take just about any car and be part of a Grand Prix even if you end the race last? I think there will always be people interested. Then, the results obtained by these newcommers would be very interesting. The best of the newcommers will surely attract the attention of some sponsors and so a new carreer opportunity is born. The lower is the number of participants the more attractive it becomes for others because the best place they can get is better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
readonly wrote:
About procession, please read 2.3.3.3.1.

Different car owners can't get equally competitive cars. I know. But that is good, I think. You know that participants get involved in F1 with different levels of ambition. Ferrari, McLaren and so, go for wins and the WDC. Others are comfortable with a top ten. Others are happy just being part of the "pinnacle of motorsports". Aren't you one of the latter? My point is that people want to be there competing and trying to beat others even if they have an inferior car just to show themselves or their sponsors that they are really good and that with similar amounts of money they can do much better than others. Then, they can ask for extra money to improve their cars and be more competitive. If the richest car maker is not winning, they will surely make changes either driver or technical crew. This dynamics guarantee that only the best are there struggling to do their best effort.

Now, why are there many levels of ambition? because different people take different levels of revenue from winning. Ferrari can sell road cars better and this represents a lot of money. Force India can prove that India has force. Williams can get sponsors to keep on doing what he loves and enjoy his succesful developments. Red Bull can make everyone adict to their drinks and make money. HRT can have some fun surviving in the F1 jungle.

From this we can have a lot of fun seeing how many different technologies and budgets compete.

What is bad for you about water tanks?


Open design rules mean those who cant afford the development resources have NO CHANCE. At least with our current system, they have the possibility of competing at the front.

Ferrari does not race to sell cars, they sell cars to race. Force India can prove India has force? Really? Come on. HRT can have some fun? They don't race for fun, that's why they are gone.

You assume there is a cap at which the benefits of success in F1 plateau...but that has never ever been the case. And even if it were...if the cost to win becomes greater than the benefit, teams don't just self regulate and all decide to spend less. There will be one who always wants to keep winning, and the rest simply QUIT. Please see: Audi Sport in endurance racing for the last I don't know, 12 years. They have completely eliminated their competitors who have one-by-one lined up to take them on and then quit when it became obvious they would do whatever it took to dominate. Toyota is taking them on for their second year, bolstered by some success against them at the end of the last, but if Audi does what it usually does, Toyota will end their program in a year or two, and Porsche will take up the reins to be the sole fighter. Two big teams really aren't that exciting to watch.

One final thing - if you want drivers to be able to succeed in your system, the ladder system needs to be similar. If GP2 and GP3, WSR, F3, etc. had similar rules, very few teams could afford to compete, which means very few drivers ever get the opportunity to progress through the ranks. Everybody loses, and you end up with weaker drivers in the F1 who really CAN'T make any difference in your backward grids and what not.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2242
Location: Perth, Australia
readonly wrote:
In you hypothetical scenario, suppose there are only 10 participants left. Wouldn't it be tempting for many to take just about any car and be part of a Grand Prix even if you end the race last? I think there will always be people interested.


So the series turns into a championship of garage workers who've put a V8 into their Pulsar and decide to race just because they have nothing better to do? There simply isn't enough money in motorsport for this to be viable.

_________________
Image
I also have one of these.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1582
We'd haver to change the name of the sport to FL with L standing for lottery, or FFC for Formula Fingers Crossed.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
POBRatings wrote:
The reverse grid order is interesting. Sprint car racing on short oval tracks as I watched it, used reverse order starting, and the best/fastest usually came through the field to win. But this is purely an impression; I have no stats on that.

In F1 though, it seems that the best teams/packages deserve to start at the front, and not have the danger of having to overtake the slower/rest. Championships are only between the top few anyway, and the racing imo is exciting enough as it is.

I like your ideas on freer tech regs that allow engineering experimentation. Today's same-engine layouts, configs, remove so much of interest. The cars might as well have anonymous Frigidaire motors; there is so little interest in the machines, so much on the celebrities in the cockpits. But I suppose the percentage of tv audiences that are interested in people/celebs outnumbers those who are interested in the tech side. Simple accounting.

Basically imo the designers, team staff should get paid more then the drivers. maybe at the same hourly rate!!! They form most of the performance equation, work longer and harder, and get hardly any/no publicity. But if I was running a media business I'd go bust overnight.


I think that the best teams/packages deserve to be allowed to use a better car, not start ahead. Using a better car makes it easier to overtake but requires the driver to be careful and skilled.

F1 did not baceme popular because of celebrities but mau¿inly due to speed. If it returns to its origins then all the fuss about F1 having financial problems will vanish. Popularity is a consequence of being a true competition in which many people can get involved, and not only the usual traditional names.

Whenever Technical development becomes truly important, good technicians will become richer and famous.

fifthace wrote:
I like your free-spirit on the rules philosphy, but it will never happen in a million years because of safety, budgetary and techincal issues.

Ground effect, for example, was banned for safety reasons (cars suddenly losing the ground effect and flying off). You also say "Turbine air streams are considered hampering to others", but it is:
a) impossible to have a laminar flow behind a car in a wind tunnel (perhaps you can say it must be xx% laminar, but then there will be a million loop holes)
b) even more impossible to have a laminar flow behind a car when it's going around a corner

Unrestricted budgets, along with unrestricted technical development (and potentially unrestricted testing) means a team like Ferrari and Red Bull will be ahead of the rest of the pack by a much bigger margin then any team manages today.

Finally, the OP says "Openness: anyone should be allowed to participate. When too many people wants to get in, then, and only then, a selection system should be used based on performance (pre-qualify)." Do you mean every race, someone new can participate? Or every season? Because HRT's entry was rumoured to have been available for £500k, which isn't that much by F1 budget-standards.

Take a look at 1.3.1. With this, aero is effectively reduced to safe levels.
I am not sure you understood what I wanted to say (or if I did say it clearly). When I say Turbine streams I mean a stream of air blown from a turbine engine. Thus, turbine engines, if used, should not "blow" on opponents. Furthermore, if rule 1.3.1. applies then any of these engine (internal) blades should comply making it very inefficient.
Normal turbulence behind cars is, as you say, inevitable, so it is not forbidden.

The rest has already been answered above.

Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
I have a question for you - how much attention do you pay to the rest of the motorsport world? F1 doesn't exist in a vacuum. You can't design it to exist on its own, it has to fit in "the system" and your concept simply doesn't.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1582
I can see sponsors loving the fact that their car may miss the cut every week....

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
ashley313 wrote:
readonly wrote:
About procession, please read 2.3.3.3.1.

Different car owners can't get equally competitive cars. I know. But that is good, I think. You know that participants get involved in F1 with different levels of ambition. Ferrari, McLaren and so, go for wins and the WDC. Others are comfortable with a top ten. Others are happy just being part of the "pinnacle of motorsports". Aren't you one of the latter? My point is that people want to be there competing and trying to beat others even if they have an inferior car just to show themselves or their sponsors that they are really good and that with similar amounts of money they can do much better than others. Then, they can ask for extra money to improve their cars and be more competitive. If the richest car maker is not winning, they will surely make changes either driver or technical crew. This dynamics guarantee that only the best are there struggling to do their best effort.

Now, why are there many levels of ambition? because different people take different levels of revenue from winning. Ferrari can sell road cars better and this represents a lot of money. Force India can prove that India has force. Williams can get sponsors to keep on doing what he loves and enjoy his succesful developments. Red Bull can make everyone adict to their drinks and make money. HRT can have some fun surviving in the F1 jungle.

From this we can have a lot of fun seeing how many different technologies and budgets compete.

What is bad for you about water tanks?


Open design rules mean those who cant afford the development resources have NO CHANCE. At least with our current system, they have the possibility of competing at the front.

Ferrari does not race to sell cars, they sell cars to race. Force India can prove India has force? Really? Come on. HRT can have some fun? They don't race for fun, that's why they are gone.

You assume there is a cap at which the benefits of success in F1 plateau...but that has never ever been the case. And even if it were...if the cost to win becomes greater than the benefit, teams don't just self regulate and all decide to spend less. There will be one who always wants to keep winning, and the rest simply QUIT. Please see: Audi Sport in endurance racing for the last I don't know, 12 years. They have completely eliminated their competitors who have one-by-one lined up to take them on and then quit when it became obvious they would do whatever it took to dominate. Toyota is taking them on for their second year, bolstered by some success against them at the end of the last, but if Audi does what it usually does, Toyota will end their program in a year or two, and Porsche will take up the reins to be the sole fighter. Two big teams really aren't that exciting to watch.

One final thing - if you want drivers to be able to succeed in your system, the ladder system needs to be similar. If GP2 and GP3, WSR, F3, etc. had similar rules, very few teams could afford to compete, which means very few drivers ever get the opportunity to progress through the ranks. Everybody loses, and you end up with weaker drivers in the F1 who really CAN'T make any difference in your backward grids and what not.

People spend money in an F1 car (team) because they have got the money. Where did this money come from? it may be theirs and they want to spend it like this or they have got sponsors to which they owe results. Some sponsors understand that with the amount they are giving they can't expect to win and they are happy with just a good result. Why? because a good result puts them in the map and they can market that to sell their products. Suppose you are the best of the rest (i.e. not the best) and you know how much extra money you need to beat the best. Would you simply quit because you have not got that money? NO. You will keep pushing until you find a sponsor that wants you to win and is willing to give you the money. Meanwhile you try your best to keep the rest behind you. That is what would happen.

If one guy wants to win every race and does whatever is needed to do that, then he DESERVES to win every race. We should be happy that he does that because we get to see what is it that made him so successful. The car must have something that the rest don't have.

A sponsor is looking for a good team and if he doesn't see the results he will turn his head (and money) to another guy. Sponsors can be car manufacturers like Ferrari or Mercedes, so they are also car owners and they will put their money on a good team leader, good technical staff and of course good drivers regardless of their nationality or likes with Bernie.

The ladder system could have or not similar rules. It is the sponsor who is in search of the best drivers. If they find him in karting or GP2 is not really important because it is their money. If many good drivers come from GP2 then sponsors will pay more attention there but if not, then go womewhere else.

Toby. wrote:
readonly wrote:
In you hypothetical scenario, suppose there are only 10 participants left. Wouldn't it be tempting for many to take just about any car and be part of a Grand Prix even if you end the race last? I think there will always be people interested.


So the series turns into a championship of garage workers who've put a V8 into their Pulsar and decide to race just because they have nothing better to do? There simply isn't enough money in motorsport for this to be viable.


If they make the Friday cut, YES. This would mean they have something REALLY good in their hands.

Money will flow from sponsors for those who can deliver the goods for their money. Also TV revenue will flow to those who make it to half the race. The good ones survive, the rest perish. If too many perish, then a bad one will get the benefit of the TV money so, some other guys, not as bad, will get motivated to beat him and get what he is getting for doing a bad job. The system motivates the good ones to participate. If you are really good but don't make it through the Friday then you are f*%&#D but then that means that the field is full of really good participants.

ashley313 wrote:
I have a question for you - how much attention do you pay to the rest of the motorsport world? F1 doesn't exist in a vacuum. You can't design it to exist on its own, it has to fit in "the system" and your concept simply doesn't.

I think that F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsports and that the rest of motorsports should follow. Not the other way around.

Asphalt_World wrote:
I can see sponsors loving the fact that their car may miss the cut every week....

And that would mean there are plenty of sponsors interested in F1 meanning F1 is in good shape. They will surely focus their attention then in different people. Maybe one of those who did make the cut or someone new, it is up to them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1582
What part of the first 6 or 7 races of last year needed mixing up?

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
readonly wrote:
I think that F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsports and that the rest of motorsports should follow. Not the other way around.


and that's why your system could never work. Fantasy land.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1582
ashley313 wrote:
readonly wrote:
I think that F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsports and that the rest of motorsports should follow. Not the other way around.


and that's why your system could never work. Fantasy land.


The ironic thing is, if he got his way and F1 moved to his own rules and regs with other motorsports following F1 like he says it should be, he'd then have to reinvent the support again to make it the pinnacle of Motorsport again....,

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
And the global economy.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
ashley313 wrote:
readonly wrote:
I think that F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsports and that the rest of motorsports should follow. Not the other way around.

and that's why your system could never work. Fantasy land.

It is the pinnacle (of any sport) the one that sets the path to follow and in F1 there are many signs of this. Just look at the evolution in other series and you will find that THEY change to resemble F1 more than the opposite.

Asphalt_World wrote:
The ironic thing is, if he got his way and F1 moved to his own rules and regs with other motorsports following F1 like he says it should be, he'd then have to reinvent the support again to make it the pinnacle of Motorsport again....,

What do you mean with "reinvent the support" ?

ashley313 wrote:
And the global economy.

Why ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1737
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
readonly wrote:
ashley313 wrote:
readonly wrote:
I think that F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsports and that the rest of motorsports should follow. Not the other way around.

and that's why your system could never work. Fantasy land.

It is the pinnacle (of any sport) the one that sets the path to follow and in F1 there are many signs of this. Just look at the evolution in other series and you will find that THEY change to resemble F1 more than the opposite.

Asphalt_World wrote:
The ironic thing is, if he got his way and F1 moved to his own rules and regs with other motorsports following F1 like he says it should be, he'd then have to reinvent the support again to make it the pinnacle of Motorsport again....,

What do you mean with "reinvent the support" ?

ashley313 wrote:
And the global economy.

Why ?


Reinventing support means reinventing the tiers below F1.

The extra money required for F1 simply isn't there, hence reinventing the global economy.

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb
https://www.facebook.com/BadExcusesBand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
Tufty wrote:
Reinventing support means reinventing the tiers below F1.

The extra money required for F1 simply isn't there, hence reinventing the global economy.

I do not think it is necessary to reinvent the tiers below F1. Why do you?

No extra money is needed. Exactly the same cars can go ahead and run. If someone wants to spend more and has the money <<<<AVAILABLE>>>> he is allowed to do it but not forced. As I said before, people will try to convince sponsors with their results. Whenever they convince them they will be able to spend more. But remember they will have to deliver.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1737
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
I'm making a point of not taking sides here, merely helping you understand ashley's point as you didn't before.

That said...

Look at the lower end of the grid. They have enough money to tick over at the moment. That would dry up if the rules were freed up, as they'd be simply annihilated due to the existing budget differences. At the moment development is restricted. In your version of the sport, they'd be nowhere, losing sponsorship and thus the team goes bust. After a while there would only be a couple of teams in the sport.

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb
https://www.facebook.com/BadExcusesBand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1582
readonly wrote:
Tufty wrote:
Reinventing support means reinventing the tiers below F1.

The extra money required for F1 simply isn't there, hence reinventing the global economy.

I do not think it is necessary to reinvent the tiers below F1. Why do you?

No extra money is needed. Exactly the same cars can go ahead and run. If someone wants to spend more and has the money <<<<AVAILABLE>>>> he is allowed to do it but not forced. As I said before, people will try to convince sponsors with their results. Whenever they convince them they will be able to spend more. But remember they will have to deliver.


Like I said earlier, what was wrong with last season, especially the first half of the season?

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
What should be is what should be, and what can be is what can be, and never the twain shall meet.


F1 has to exist in the entire motorsport community, not just at the top of the open wheel ladder. Sports car car racing, endurance racing, rallying, stock car categories, touring car racing, motorbike racing, other major open wheel series, national series, regional series...all must fight for their piece of what is most definitely a finite pie of resources from talent to sponsorship, investment to broadcasting, and circuits to promoters. You can't rape the rest of the sport for the benefit of F1, there are too many other interests involved.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
You have to reinvent the tiers below because they are the training ground for drivers, engineers, managers, designers, mechanics. If the series they are racing in has no relevance to F1, they will not be prepared for F1. They cannot have similar rules, as the feeder series do now, if F1 were as you imagine it. The teams can't exist that way.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:21 pm
Posts: 1738
I apologise to all those, including the OP, who have clearly put effort into their posts, but I don't have enough hours left on the earth to read through them!

I just want to say I love F1 as it is. DRS is a quick fix to a problem that should be solved by further restricting aero and other clever things I'm not smart enough to understand. But it works. We no longer have a repeat of Abu Dhabi 2010 with cars getting indefinitely stuck behind others without any hope of passing. We have situations like Spain 2011 where Hamilton followed Vettel throughout the last 20 laps of the race and at times looked pretty certain to overtake, only for Vettel to successfully defend. Which is much better. Pirelli tyres are great at simulating what we'd have if there was a tyre war. The drivers are generally very skilled and deserve to be in F1.

If you really want the sort of do-or-die racing on a budget, go and watch lower formulae or touring cars. I don't mean that in a fecaecious (sp, sorry always had a blind spot with that word) way, it is genuinely great racing and if you want to see it live tickets are dirt cheap. If you really don't like F1 as it is, F1 may not be for you.

_________________
Official Kamui Kobayashi Fanboy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
facetious

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
Tufty wrote:
I'm making a point of not taking sides here, merely helping you understand ashley's point as you didn't before.

That said...

Look at the lower end of the grid. They have enough money to tick over at the moment. That would dry up if the rules were freed up, as they'd be simply annihilated due to the existing budget differences. At the moment development is restricted. In your version of the sport, they'd be nowhere, losing sponsorship and thus the team goes bust. After a while there would only be a couple of teams in the sport.

So, you are proposing a spec F1. Historically, F1 gained its popularity from being the opposite.

Asphalt_World wrote:
Like I said earlier, what was wrong with last season, especially the first half of the season?

These:

1) Tyre rules: Having a single supplier opens the possibility of an agreement to do (indirect) manipulations. Having compulsory bad tyres for everyone opens the possibility to secretly give one team a good tyre.

2) DRS rules: Limiting the use of DRS to certain parts of the track opens the possibility that a team uses it outside of this zones without us or anyone else noticing it and that the FIA simply does not punish it.

3) KERS: Same as DRS. Exceeding the limits that the rules impose can't be judged by us nor rival teams. If the FIA want, they can allow selected teams to use some extra power.

4) Miscelaneous interventions: deployment of SC whenever their favourite driver is too far behind, etc.

5) As some other forumers have suggested: the FIA might have agreed with teams some results due to political situations or simply to share the benefits of being part of F1.

6) Controlling results (but making them look as if they were not) is very lucrative at betting. And I have the feelling that BE bets and earns a lot of money from that.

In general, rules are made to allow the fia to cheat. There is no transparency in them. Rules can certainly be transparent but people in the FIA do not want to make them more transparent simply because they think they can earn more like this. But this is false. They would earn more with a true competition.

ashley313 wrote:
What should be is what should be, and what can be is what can be, and never the twain shall meet.

F1 has to exist in the entire motorsport community, not just at the top of the open wheel ladder. Sports car car racing, endurance racing, rallying, stock car categories, touring car racing, motorbike racing, other major open wheel series, national series, regional series...all must fight for their piece of what is most definitely a finite pie of resources from talent to sponsorship, investment to broadcasting, and circuits to promoters. You can't rape the rest of the sport for the benefit of F1, there are too many other interests involved.

I think that is not the case. If F1 offered a better product, i.e., a more massive one, More money would be flowing into it borrowing (or raping) nothing to other series. See that a popular F1 eager to hire only the best of the best drivers and technical crew benefits other forms of motorsport in that they could become the main source of good F1 drivers. Sponsors would be looking desperately for good drivers everywhere, no matter if it is GP2, or the Australian national karting championship.

ashley313 wrote:
You have to reinvent the tiers below because they are the training ground for drivers, engineers, managers, designers, mechanics. If the series they are racing in has no relevance to F1, they will not be prepared for F1. They cannot have similar rules, as the feeder series do now, if F1 were as you imagine it. The teams can't exist that way.

Car racing is car racing in F1 and everywhere else. A good driver in karting could make it to F1 after some training in powerful cars. This is the beauty of motorsports. Driving is easy. Having the guts and ability to handle a fast car is something that requires talent. If you were born with it then you can make it to the top. The point is that drivers do not need to have years of experience in "similar" rules. Good drivers are everywhere in the world waiting to be discovered. If F1 has the motivation to do it, it will happen. These drivers will be discovered. Under the current rules, you must be good friend of Bernie or bribe him sufficiently so that you can win anything.

Volantary wrote:
I apologise to all those, including the OP, who have clearly put effort into their posts, but I don't have enough hours left on the earth to read through them!

I just want to say I love F1 as it is. DRS is a quick fix to a problem that should be solved by further restricting aero and other clever things I'm not smart enough to understand. But it works. We no longer have a repeat of Abu Dhabi 2010 with cars getting indefinitely stuck behind others without any hope of passing. We have situations like Spain 2011 where Hamilton followed Vettel throughout the last 20 laps of the race and at times looked pretty certain to overtake, only for Vettel to successfully defend. Which is much better. Pirelli tyres are great at simulating what we'd have if there was a tyre war. The drivers are generally very skilled and deserve to be in F1.

If you really want the sort of do-or-die racing on a budget, go and watch lower formulae or touring cars. I don't mean that in a fecaecious (sp, sorry always had a blind spot with that word) way, it is genuinely great racing and if you want to see it live tickets are dirt cheap. If you really don't like F1 as it is, F1 may not be for you.

I do not love F1 as it is now. It used to be something very different. See the criticism above about what is wrong in topday's F1 (if you have some time :) )


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 7876
Location: London
To the OP,

NOPE. NEVER. NEVERNOPENEVER.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:23 pm
Posts: 29
Laura23 wrote:
To the OP,

NOPE. NEVER. NEVERNOPENEVER.

Why?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 7876
Location: London
readonly wrote:
Laura23 wrote:
To the OP,

NOPE. NEVER. NEVERNOPENEVER.

Why?

Because 99% of your proposal is hopeless.

I also think anyone who believes that the FIA should deliberately hamper drivers just to spice up the show is not a true fan of the sport, in fact they know nothing about sport at all.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1582
Readonly, rather than copy all that spiel again, tell me what was not good about the variety of winners at the start of last year?

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redefining F1
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1582
Laura23 wrote:
readonly wrote:
Laura23 wrote:
To the OP,

NOPE. NEVER. NEVERNOPENEVER.

Why?

Because 99% of your proposal is hopeless.

I also think anyone who believes that the FIA should deliberately hamper drivers just to spice up the show is not a true fan of the sport, in fact they know nothing about sport at all.


asphalt_world runs and hides head behind pillow........

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


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], LKS1, sandman1347 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