planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:06 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5307
So in year 2 of these new aerodynamic regulations I think it has become clear that the sport is heading in the wrong direction. In fact, I think the sport is in worse shape from an entertainment standpoint than it has been in a very long time. We have returned to 00's-style processions only now we are having races like that WITH DRS! The frustrating part is that I remember discussing this in the forum back when the new regs were announced in 2016 with a few other posters and we all saw this coming. With the increased aerodynamic performance and downforce, there was always going to be an exacerbation of F1's biggest and longest lasting problem (dirty air). The fact that a bunch of arm-chair experts and keyboard warriors all saw this coming but apparently the FIA did not, is just disturbing.

What I see now is a sport that has made several choices that hurt the entertainment value for the fans. The aero on the cars is the most glaring issue but the draconian engine rules with the very strict limitations is another one. Why F1 is being run like an endurance series is beyond me. We now have a series of races where no one is pushing as hard as they can because the engine has to last 7 races. It's just a bunch of cars in a procession doing a one-stop and then coasting home. In order to pass another car, you need a scenario like we had in China; where you have drivers on different compounds and also fresher tires. Between the big three teams, if there is no tire difference, there will be no overtaking. The race in Canada was absolutely brutal to watch. basically you get some excitement on the first 5-10 laps these days and then a bit more around the time of the first stops (usually about 30-40% race distance). Once the stops are over, it's basically like watching paint dry. to have racing this bad in the DRS era is ominous.

I also happen to watch MotoGP (basically the F1 of motorcycle racing) and the contrast is staggering. They have all of the things that F1 doesn't. The races take less than an hour and never get boring. The leaders are often locked in intense battles wheel to wheel for victory. There is a clearly defined path to make it to the top level (Moto3-Moto2-MotoGP) and bringing funding to the team is not a common way for riders to make progress. It's just a much more digestible entertainment package and much more satisfying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23685
Agree that the engine regulations sharer a great deal of the blame for the state of F1 today. That and the tyres, IMO. But I think the solution for the tyres is to make them more performance based again, not have these ridiculously thermally sensitive options like now.

Also agree that the endurance format is helping to kill the racing. Drivers are too focused on having to save components over multiple races.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1858
Location: Miami, Florida
The simple fix is well known but the FIA are allowing manufacturers dictate terms rather than just stipulating the terms under which entrants of the series are to adhere to.
The current aero is an aesthetically welcomed change, but with the extremely turbulent air being such a pronounced issue, the reintroduction of ground effects has never been more warranted.
Additionally, the costs of the complex Hybrid Power Units coupled with the minimal allotment of total unites per season being down to just 3 (STUPIDEST IDEA EVER), leaves drivers and teams crippled to the point they cannot push to the limit the way Hamilton couldn't in Canada this past weekend. Hamilton had issues with his power unit's performance fluctuating all race long and he was expecting it to give out at some point. He said he would be able to push just fine to catch Ricciardo back up but then would feel a drop in power and would then ease off a bit to nurse his engine and the power would return and he'd push and it would begin to lose power again.

The moronicus maximus of how manufacturers have changed the the way the sport has devolved into a display of whom can manage to finish first despite the crippling regulations, is contrary to the essence of true all-out racing and the sport needs to return to that. For decades "Supercars" were made to mimic the pinnacle of motorsport as closely as possible, but today the manufacturers have made it so the most extreme racing machines on the planet are engineered more closely to their consumer products.

A simple return to ferocious sounding V10's with as much Hi-Tech developments added since they were last featured in the sport, coupled with ground effects would not only lower costs, but also improve the entire show.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Last edited by F1 MERCENARY on Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1302
Location: London
Zoue wrote:
Agree that the engine regulations sharer a great deal of the blame for the state of F1 today. That and the tyres, IMO. But I think the solution for the tyres is to make them more performance based again, not have these ridiculously thermally sensitive options like now.

Also agree that the endurance format is helping to kill the racing. Drivers are too focused on having to save components over multiple races.


I think Pirelli have been a disaster from the very start. Wasn't the brief to make sure we had races with multiple stops as per the Canadian GP of 2012 which had been a great race? Well they did that by making tyres that dropped off the cliff and were irretrievably ruined if pushed. Now in 2018 we have the irony of a Canadian GP 1 stopper. Their tyres even now are horrible, awfully narrow operating window, absurd number of compounds and comedy nomenclature. Didn't Erricson do 68 laps this weekend on 1 set of "Supersofts"? I have been watching a lot of classic races from the 80s, 90s and early naughties recently and have been struck by how little discussion there is about about tyres.

I'd also agree about this efficiency drive. It is just hurting the racing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5307
There just seems to be an overall lack of any clarity of purpose. It's beyond me that these current regulations were ever passed in the first place.

F1 Mercenary - I totally agree with your point about the manufacturers. I think there is a festering culture in F1 in which the manufacturers sort of look at it as this huge investment and that they should have an inordinate amount of say in how it is handled. I've said this time and time again with regards to other topics such as Ferrari threatening to quit. F1 needs to make it clear to the car companies that it is a SPORT. It should be run to create a fun, entertaining and satisfying competition. What's happened instead is that it is a bore-fest for engineers that showcases its drivers perhaps less than any other major racing series. For a driver to make the difference in today's F1 is increasingly difficult because everyone is operating within such unreasonable constraints.

I truly do believe the issue is nearing terminal status because even the gimmick of DRS cannot compensate for the current cars and the racing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:39 pm
Posts: 245
Wasn't it Niki Lauda himself that said the key to success is to win going as slowly as possible? Well that's certainly what we've got now.

As for ground effects, wasn't it ruled out on safety grounds due to it leading to higher speed crashes when the ground effect is lost in an accident?

Totally agree with the post race comments on sky too saying that drivers should come out of races dripping with sweat and unable to even speak for a few minutes due to the ordeal of driving a car at 10/10ths for an hour or so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2877
Location: UK
To quote Pat Symonds in the winter of 2016/17:

"The starting point for these regulations had no mention of overtaking or closeness of racing or anything like that"


And this is the result. It is symptomatic of:
1) How Bernie had lost the plot entirely in the final few years of his tenure (knockout qualifying being another fine example). These regulations were his idea. It wasn't even for entertainment purposes, it was purely because he wasn't happy that a 17 year old Max Verstappen could step into a car and be quick straight away so he wanted the cars to be more challenging to drive.
2) How out of touch the high-ups in the sport really are from the concerns of the fans. They all thought it was a great idea too.
3) Why the teams should not have a say in the running of the sport, as they care only for their own short-term interests.


At least Liberty Media seem to recognise the severity of the situation and are trying to make changes for next year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1310
Location: Far side of Koozebane
The biggest sin Bernie committed was placing too much power in the hands of the manufacturer teams, plus RB, at the expense of the privateer teams. Once their self interest started to influence the direction of the sport then things started to deteriorate dramatically.

He gave away the heart and soul of this sport to teams who openly state they see F1 as no more than a "Marketing Exercise" while forgetting those who want to go racing for the sake of racing.

I hate to sound like a rambling old grandpa but back in the 80's the manufacturer teams were Ferrari towards the front of the grid, Renault either up there winning or in decline & Alfa mid table or towards the back of the grid. We also had privateer teams like McLaren, Williams, Lotus, Brabham, Ligier, Tyrell, Arrows, Toleman etc, either regularly competing for wins or points. They were days when we needed pre-qualifying because the sport had too many teams wanting to race. Days when everyone at least had the same opportunity to get to the top of the podium given a bit of cash, the right people and the odd bit of luck.

We now have the sad situation where Merc, Ferrari, & Red Bull have been the only race winners, and overwhelmingly representing a majority of the points scorers, since 2013. The sport is in a bad, bad way.

The engine regs have been an abject failure. In an attempt to make F1 "road relevant", all they've done is stifle competition, placing more power in the hands of the manufacturers and creating this abysmal two tier sport where Merc & Ferrari sell teams an inferior product to ensure only they, along with RB, remain at the top of the grid. These engines have managed to entice ZERO new suppliers onto the grid other than Honda and they've not exactly been a glowing endorsement for the engines or the regs that governs them.

Restricting the amount of components allowed during the season have not cut costs as was said to be the intention. Instead, the big teams have just spent more on aero development and as of course each team has to come up with their own design, this has only meant the gap between the haves and have not's has widened. The result of this increase on aero dependency has of course resulted in farcical situation we have now regarding following the car in front. It's also led to an over emphasis on component conservation at the expense of performance.

Then we have the young driver programs where the big teams can close the final loophole in the total domination cycle by corralling the talent at a young age and then play "Next Top F1 Driver" by planting them in lower formulae and gradually casting aside the wanna be's and keeping the best of whats left. They then complete the humiliation of the poor privateer teams by saying "You want our engine and our help to survive in F1? Then here is our young driver. He will drive for you and he will move over when our car comes up behind him".

Then, to compound the problem, there is the totally lopsided prize money structure that further serves to cripples the privateer teams.

The sport has sold out on the privateer teams. The teams who were F1. The teams who made F1. The teams who wanted to be in F1 because they only wanted to go racing. It sold them out to accommodate the whims of the few teams who's only interest is self interest and in doing so it's allowed these teams to have such an influence on the sport as to allow them to manipulate the regulations to turn the sport into the expensive bore fest we have in 2018. Sadly these are the very teams who will up and leave the sport once they've achieved their "marketing objectives" and leave everyone else to pick up what remains and try to carry on.

Liberty have a big challenge in front of them to change the sport and to me their number 1 mission should be to wrest control of the sport back from those Bernie handed it to and ensure the viabilty of those teams who are in the sport for the right reason.. I hope they're up to it.

I'm Jezza13, and that's my opinion.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:35 am
Posts: 972
Excellent thread.
Echoes many of my thoughts.

The FIA need to grow a set, make the rules and state if you dont like it lump it.
If that means Merc or Ferrari take their ball and go home, so be it.

There is no competition whatsoever. Last season only 1 driver outwith Red Bull, Mercedes and Ferrari made the podium in the entire season (Lance Stroll at Azerbajan)
Same so far this season, Perez at the same track.
Lets say there is 15 laps to go, and for example Hamilton is leading, Vettel has fresh tyres and is closing a second a lap. You know fine well 99/100 times there will be zero overtake.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7271
Location: Belgium
TedStriker wrote:
Wasn't it Niki Lauda himself that said the key to success is to win going as slowly as possible? Well that's certainly what we've got now.

As for ground effects, wasn't it ruled out on safety grounds due to it leading to higher speed crashes when the ground effect is lost in an accident?

Totally agree with the post race comments on sky too saying that drivers should come out of races dripping with sweat and unable to even speak for a few minutes due to the ordeal of driving a car at 10/10ths for an hour or so.
Niki was right when he said what he said, but he didn't say drivers should drive as slowly as possible. He said drivers shouldn't do more than they had to, to win. And there were no mandatory pitstops to take on circus tyres that would make additonal tyre stops risky.
Cars were more vulnerable, and drivers even more. With the current cars, reliability is so much better than it was then, that using that statement outright is simply wrong.

Ground effect cars could have huge accidents during the era of sealing skirts that went all the way down to the track, if such a skirt were suddenly damaged, or got stuck in a position that failed to seal the airflow under the car from the flow outside. As such, ground effect (a wrong name anyway) is no more dangerous than fore and aft wings in combination with the flat bottom and diffusor. In fact, Niki Lauda was among those who felt that cornering speeds due to ground effect were getting out of hand.
Ground effect (or rather "underbody aerofoil shaping") was continued in Indycars, but without the sealing skirts that ran all the way down to the track. At this time, going back to shaped underbodies with only small front and rear wings to trim aero-balance might well be the solution to poor racing. It might make stupid SC periods less likely, as cars touching each other would cause less debris on the track.

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 1581
Location: Canada
Wow, everyone is on it today. I can only say I agree with the sentiment of all of these comments. I hope they listen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23685
There's always been an element of conservation and strategy in F1, but it's the degree to which they have taken over that has made it uncomfortable viewing today. And I cannot imagine how supposedly intelligent people could not foresee that forcing components to last longer and longer would not have some corresponding influence on the racing. Making units last for 7 races is just short-sighted, IMO, and I believe it was Ron Dennis who busted the myth that this saves money, as the development costs to make sure everything was bulletproof for such extended periods has meant costs escalating, not reducing.

The lack of testing, brought in part by embracing hideously expensive wind tunnel technology, combined with the heavy development restrictions, is another sure fire way to ensure that racing is compromised. If a team cannot make changes and pull out all the stops to become competitive, but instead have to do all their testing on the race track, then of course there will be imbalances, especially when introducing brand new and untried technology, like with the hybrids. Are they really that short-sighted that they couldn't foresee that one team might hit the jackpot and thereafter have their advantage locked in indefinitely? The mind boggles at their thought processes. And the McHonda debacle is living proof that such draconian restrictions do absolutely nothing for the racing and only work to the detriment of the possibility of attracting new suppliers.

As for the tyres, personally I think they are the single biggest disaster to have befallen F1 in all the years I've been watching (followed by the hybrids). There's an article on Autosport questioning whether it's time to bring in tyre wars and, although I could only read the headline because it's behind a paywall, I'm all for it if it means getting rid of Pirelli's monstrosities. The degree of management drivers have to do today, and the consequences of getting that slightly wrong, impact the racing far too much to be healthy. It's better than it used to be at the beginning with the comedy versions, but as far as I'm concerned they are still way too temperamental. Competition would at least ensure that they are focused on performance.

All of the above combined demonstrates to me that the rule-makers don't really understand what they are governing. It's turned too much into a manufacturer showcase and has become much less a racing spectacle. On track we've barely progressed much beyond 2005, which makes me seriously question what the last 13 years or so have been for. If we'd continued evolution from then, instead of trying to radically change things every few years, I reckon we'd have been in a much better position now than we are


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:35 am
Posts: 972
Please someone send this thread by email to
Jean Todt
Ross Brawn
Chevy Chase.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5307
Part of the problem is that there is a solid percentage of people who actually condone this current culture of placating the largest manufacturer teams. Even among fans there are those who claim the F1 has to bend over backwards for Ferrari and that the Ferrari quit threat should be treated like someone has taken your family hostage. There are people who actually believe that F1 aught to bend the knee to the Ferraris and Mercedes of the world. Ironically, these same people are often the first to complain about the boring and uninspiring races...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1310
Location: Far side of Koozebane
sandman1347 wrote:
Part of the problem is that there is a solid percentage of people who actually condone this current culture of placating the largest manufacturer teams. Even among fans there are those who claim the F1 has to bend over backwards for Ferrari and that the Ferrari quit threat should be treated like someone has taken your family hostage. There are people who actually believe that F1 aught to bend the knee to the Ferraris and Mercedes of the world. Ironically, these same people are often the first to complain about the boring and uninspiring races...


Personally I couldn't care less if Ferrari, Merc or RB packed up & pi**ed off.

Yeah the sport might take an initial hit but if it meant placing the sport in the hands of those who's main concern is the sport and we had a return to loud, fast cars that were beasts to control and at least provided the opportunity for every team to fight their way to the top through tough, competitive and strategic racing I think those teams would quickly become a distant memory and the sport would recover.

I do find it sad and a tad ironic that the 3 teams who threaten to leave the sport year in, year out are the exact 3 teams that have had the sport bend over backwards to accommodate them at the expense of everyone else, including the fans, and are the exact 3 teams who have benefited the most from the each reg change and are the exact 3 teams, with the blessing of the FIA & FOM, have had such an influence on the direction of the sport and led it into the diabolical state as we see it today.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5307
Jezza13 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Part of the problem is that there is a solid percentage of people who actually condone this current culture of placating the largest manufacturer teams. Even among fans there are those who claim the F1 has to bend over backwards for Ferrari and that the Ferrari quit threat should be treated like someone has taken your family hostage. There are people who actually believe that F1 aught to bend the knee to the Ferraris and Mercedes of the world. Ironically, these same people are often the first to complain about the boring and uninspiring races...


Personally I couldn't care less if Ferrari, Merc or RB packed up & pi**ed off.

Yeah the sport might take an initial hit but if it meant placing the sport in the hands of those who's main concern is the sport and we had a return to loud, fast cars that were beasts to control and at least provided the opportunity for every team to fight their way to the top through tough, competitive and strategic racing I think those teams would quickly become a distant memory and the sport would recover.

I do find it sad and a tad ironic that the 3 teams who threaten to leave the sport year in, year out are the exact 3 teams that have had the sport bend over backwards to accommodate them at the expense of everyone else, including the fans, and are the exact 3 teams who have benefited the most from the each reg change and are the exact 3 teams, with the blessing of the FIA & FOM, have had such an influence on the direction of the sport and led it into the diabolical state as we see it today.

I feel the same way but there are plenty of people who will preach about the importance of Ferrari when you make these kinds of statements. IMO the sport has far greater potential than what we are seeing. The current state of F1 serves only the purpose of having those large brands win all the races and get maximum return for their marketing spend. It in no way features the drivers and it in no way creates an exciting or even fair competition. If the will were there, the sport could quite easily be made into one with far better racing, where the drivers play a larger role and where costs are dramatically reduced. We'll see how things develop.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6294
First of all, thank you sandman, this is a very interesting thread that doesn't (in theory) melt down to "my driver is better than yours", it is one that all of us can get involved in a meaningful conversation.

And there, already so many views that I agree with, concerns I share and scepticism.

I just want to add to Jezza's post:

Jezza13 wrote:
I hate to sound like a rambling old grandpa but back in the 80's the manufacturer teams were Ferrari towards the front of the grid, Renault either up there winning or in decline & Alfa mid table or towards the back of the grid. We also had privateer teams like McLaren, Williams, Lotus, Brabham, Ligier, Tyrell, Arrows, Toleman etc, either regularly competing for wins or points. They were days when we needed pre-qualifying because the sport had too many teams wanting to race. Days when everyone at least had the same opportunity to get to the top of the podium given a bit of cash, the right people and the odd bit of luck.


Don't forget that the FISA-FOCA wars were there since the 70's. It is not a new thing and we had the old GP boycotting, something that nobody wants to see. I am trying not to be a romantic, nor a "back in the day was always better" (I am not saying that this is something you do Jezza13, just a point about myself), I am aware that even back then they had their own problems. It was just a different era and it is somewhat unfair to compare.

Every era is different and we can't go backwards. This sport, just like everything in life, evolves. This is a sport that is not just about racing, but it is about technology as well. I do not want to see road relevant technologies personally, what is the point? They are not racing my mom's Huyndai, this is the pinnacle of motorsport. It should NOT have road relevant technology, this is why you have DTM racing for...

I also find somewhat unfair to claim that "Sadly these are the very teams who will up and leave the sport once they've achieved their "marketing objectives" and leave everyone else to pick up what remains and try to carry on.". Some of the big manufacturers left after the credit crunch of 2008, including Honda, Toyota and BMW. It is understandable that they'd want to cut costs instead of firing personnel in order to keep their expensive racing going.

The FIA also wasn't alone in ruling the cost cutting measures. FOTA was right there with them, agreeing what happened first in 2004 (engine to last the whole weekend) to the drastic cost cutting measures that they voted (unanimously) in 2008. I hate to see F1 becoming an economy race, but it was the only way the smaller teams would survive. From one point of view it was nice to have all these small teams in the 80-90's; on the other hand it was horrible to see them fold one after the other.

All in all I am not having a go at this post from Jezza, I respect the opinion and agree with a lot. I am just saying that there is the other side to consider as well.

I am afraid the solution is not going to be an easy task. I wish I knew how to do it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1582
What is entertainment in F1?

According to the Monaco GP - there is no pressure to have a race at all. The most interesting part of the race was seeing just how much slower Ricciardo could drive and still not be overtaken. It will not be a race next year either - yet it is OK because of what it brings to F1. I'm not sure what it actually brings that is so valuable.

Then there is the thrill of the secret technology which the top teams are using, but it's a secret, so you get some bits of it that leak out. How many people who watch F1 are thrilled by the technology that goes into fuel saving and reliability?

Strategy is entertaining? DRS usage, battery usage, fuel usage, tyre usage, engine usage. Using customer teams to help works teams. Team orders.

Other sports try to become more entertaining - not less entertaining. Tennis has tie breaks, limited challenges, Hawkeye and has maintained a level playing field. There is team work, but the contestant has to compete almost entirely based on their own ability.

NFL is an even better example of a Sport run to provide the best Show for the fans.

F1 is a mess at the moment, but I do think the new owners realise that and are trying to make some improvements. Monaco is an example of what they are up against.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6294
babararacucudada wrote:
What is entertainment in F1?

According to the Monaco GP - there is no pressure to have a race at all. The most interesting part of the race was seeing just how much slower Ricciardo could drive and still not be overtaken. It will not be a race next year either - yet it is OK because of what it brings to F1. I'm not sure what it actually brings that is so valuable.

Then there is the thrill of the secret technology which the top teams are using, but it's a secret, so you get some bits of it that leak out. How many people who watch F1 are thrilled by the technology that goes into fuel saving and reliability?

Strategy is entertaining? DRS usage, battery usage, fuel usage, tyre usage, engine usage. Using customer teams to help works teams. Team orders.

Other sports try to become more entertaining - not less entertaining. Tennis has tie breaks, limited challenges, Hawkeye and has maintained a level playing field. There is team work, but the contestant has to compete almost entirely based on their own ability.

NFL is an even better example of a Sport run to provide the best Show for the fans.

F1 is a mess at the moment, but I do think the new owners realise that and are trying to make some improvements. Monaco is an example of what they are up against.


I see what you are saying, but how can you equate F1 with other sports, even from the show point of view? Other motorsports maybe, but not other sports in general. For example, the NFL (as well as the NBA) does an All Star game, purely to please the fans. This would be impossible in F1. Unless for one extra race without points at the end of the season you shuffle all the drivers and each can drive another car! Sounds a bit like apples and oranges, unless I don't get your example, in which case I'd like to ask you to elaborate if you could.

Regarding other motorsports, there is definitely room to improve. I remember in NASCAR they do an interview with the driver while he is driving in a warm up lap (or something like that, I am not really following it). This would be amazing to chat to a driver while they are circling the circuit.

There are definitely ideas that can be copied, I'm looking forward to Liberty taking initiatives. It will be strange to change F1, but how much worse could it be?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2877
Location: UK
Jezza13 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Part of the problem is that there is a solid percentage of people who actually condone this current culture of placating the largest manufacturer teams. Even among fans there are those who claim the F1 has to bend over backwards for Ferrari and that the Ferrari quit threat should be treated like someone has taken your family hostage. There are people who actually believe that F1 aught to bend the knee to the Ferraris and Mercedes of the world. Ironically, these same people are often the first to complain about the boring and uninspiring races...


Personally I couldn't care less if Ferrari, Merc or RB packed up & pi**ed off.

Yeah the sport might take an initial hit but if it meant placing the sport in the hands of those who's main concern is the sport and we had a return to loud, fast cars that were beasts to control and at least provided the opportunity for every team to fight their way to the top through tough, competitive and strategic racing I think those teams would quickly become a distant memory and the sport would recover.

I do find it sad and a tad ironic that the 3 teams who threaten to leave the sport year in, year out are the exact 3 teams that have had the sport bend over backwards to accommodate them at the expense of everyone else, including the fans, and are the exact 3 teams who have benefited the most from the each reg change and are the exact 3 teams, with the blessing of the FIA & FOM, have had such an influence on the direction of the sport and led it into the diabolical state as we see it today.

Could not agree more :thumbup:

We saw in 2009 just how quickly the sport's fanbase can adapt to new names at the front of the order and that most people are, above all else, fans of F1 rather than fans of any particular team or driver. There was a lot of Brawn merchandise on display at Silverstone that year, and no one really seemed that bothered that McLaren and Hamilton were nowhere as there was someone new to support.

It's good to see that Liberty have recognised this and are trying to both wrest control back from the teams and create a fairer financial structure. It looks like they'll try to do it progressively to keep the big teams there; their proposal was to keep the special Ferrari payment but drop it to $40 million (how will they ever cope with such an injustice?) but you can be sure that it'll be reduced even further when the next round of commercial negotiations comes up a few years down the line. I'd rather keep all the current teams there as F1 does not want to be left looking for three or four new teams because the manufacturers have suddenly packed up and left, but the prospect of watching Charles Leclerc battling for the championship at the wheel of a Force India does not bother me in the slightest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1582
Siao7 wrote:
babararacucudada wrote:
What is entertainment in F1?

According to the Monaco GP - there is no pressure to have a race at all. The most interesting part of the race was seeing just how much slower Ricciardo could drive and still not be overtaken. It will not be a race next year either - yet it is OK because of what it brings to F1. I'm not sure what it actually brings that is so valuable.

Then there is the thrill of the secret technology which the top teams are using, but it's a secret, so you get some bits of it that leak out. How many people who watch F1 are thrilled by the technology that goes into fuel saving and reliability?

Strategy is entertaining? DRS usage, battery usage, fuel usage, tyre usage, engine usage. Using customer teams to help works teams. Team orders.

Other sports try to become more entertaining - not less entertaining. Tennis has tie breaks, limited challenges, Hawkeye and has maintained a level playing field. There is team work, but the contestant has to compete almost entirely based on their own ability.

NFL is an even better example of a Sport run to provide the best Show for the fans.

F1 is a mess at the moment, but I do think the new owners realise that and are trying to make some improvements. Monaco is an example of what they are up against.


I see what you are saying, but how can you equate F1 with other sports, even from the show point of view? Other motorsports maybe, but not other sports in general. For example, the NFL (as well as the NBA) does an All Star game, purely to please the fans. This would be impossible in F1. Unless for one extra race without points at the end of the season you shuffle all the drivers and each can drive another car! Sounds a bit like apples and oranges, unless I don't get your example, in which case I'd like to ask you to elaborate if you could.

Regarding other motorsports, there is definitely room to improve. I remember in NASCAR they do an interview with the driver while he is driving in a warm up lap (or something like that, I am not really following it). This would be amazing to chat to a driver while they are circling the circuit.

There are definitely ideas that can be copied, I'm looking forward to Liberty taking initiatives. It will be strange to change F1, but how much worse could it be?


When I started to follow F1, I did so by reading in a Motorsports newspaper. Now the world is different and they are mostly supplying a TV audience. That puts them in competition with other sports which are vying for a lot of the same viewers IMO. Apart from competing with other sports, they could be competing in terms of entertainment. I don't watch much live F1 and even the highlights show on Ch4 (despite their best efforts - which I consider a good effort) IMO struggle to create some excitement.

IMO F1 doesn't even know what it is trying to be. Is it a competitive sport? Is it an glamorous money spending engineering Show? Is it an avenue for advertisements? Is it a semi-reality Show?

It is not focused on being a high quality competitive sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:11 am
Posts: 919
Anyone who has followed racing for even a short while could see these aero regulations would make close racing harder, not easier.

If they truly want to reduce costs, enhance the racing and keep manufacturers happy by focusing on developing in road relevant areas, it's simple, tiny, simplified wings, maybe even standardised. Turning speeds need to go down, breaking distances increase, driver input entering corners make a bigger difference, and then we will see better racing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23685
Alex53 wrote:
Anyone who has followed racing for even a short while could see these aero regulations would make close racing harder, not easier.

If they truly want to reduce costs, enhance the racing and keep manufacturers happy by focusing on developing in road relevant areas, it's simple, tiny, simplified wings, maybe even standardised. Turning speeds need to go down, breaking distances increase, driver input entering corners make a bigger difference, and then we will see better racing.

Problem is that increasing braking distances will never be agreed on safety grounds. We had reduced cornering speeds when the hybrids were introduced but almost to a man the drivers complained that the cars were no longer fun to drive. I know some will say "so what" but I don't think the solution is to make it unpleasant for the participants.

Wings is an interesting debate. It's my understanding that this is an area where the teams offer some of the biggest resistance, seeing it as one of the biggest areas for differentiation between teams' performances. Personally, I'm against standardizing of anything as I don't think it belongs in F1. We have Indy for that.

Dirty air appears to be the biggest problem, so they need to focus mainly on overcoming that IMO. I don't think speed in itself is an issue. But maybe mandating simpler front wings would be a start, as would investigating more ground effect options so that the car is less sensitive on the air in front.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2367
You have to wonder what the point is of paying a driver mega money for the last tenth he brings, when he's driving three seconds off the true pace of the car to preserve the engine?

I agree that the FIA should stipulate the rules and take a take it or leave it stance, but aren't the FIA the ones responsible for the three engine rule? It is they who have turned F1 into an endurance series with that nonsensical approach. Yes, one engine per weekend is wasteful, but it's the only way to ensure that what you are getting is racing at the max, and if F1 wants to remain the pinnacle of motor sport that's what it should be.

Unfortunately I think F1 is approaching a crunch period, with electric cars becoming more common it needs to decide what it wants to be. Either it needs to remain a ICE championship, and screw the big players, or it's going to end up with 3 car manufacturer teams running near-silent, auto-assisted contraptions with impact avoidance systems...

As it is I can't actually believe anyone pays to watch the races.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1858
Location: Miami, Florida
sandman1347 wrote:
Part of the problem is that there is a solid percentage of people who actually condone this current culture of placating the largest manufacturer teams. Even among fans there are those who claim the F1 has to bend over backwards for Ferrari and that the Ferrari quit threat should be treated like someone has taken your family hostage. There are people who actually believe that F1 aught to bend the knee to the Ferraris and Mercedes of the world. Ironically, these same people are often the first to complain about the boring and uninspiring races...

As far as I know Ferrari threatened to leave because if the direction the sport has gone in the last 10 years, so their position is the correct one in my view.
They didn't want the V6Hybrids, they wanted a more purist engine formula. Mercedes was a huge proponent for changing things up so it's more relevant to their consumer product because they are the only true volume manufacturer in the sport. As such, I feel the sport's governing body should have said he guys, we want you in our sport, but you're just one team vs, 13 others so you're the ones who need to suck it up and adhere to the rules or you have the option to leave. And thanks to Mercedes' Renault if I remember correctly then jumped on the same bandwagon, at a time when they didn't even field a works team. which then made it 2 teams vs everyone else which still placed them in the vast minority. And while I do realize this enticed Honda to jump back into the sandbox, I'm pretty sure they were coming back to F1 regardless. And given their V10's and V8's were such solid engines, they would have more than likely fared far better building a N/A configuration as opposed to this complex V6 Hybrid – which has taken them 5 years to get close to right – at an astronomically greater cost than if it had been straight up N/A technology.

And while for the most part I could do without Mercedes in F1, I don't think the sport should ever be absent of Ferrari, McLaren or Williams (Sauber too). They are the 3 most successful and longest tenured teams in the sport and losing either one of them (for me) would be a crushing blow! I am a fan of the sport first and though I have my favorite drivers, I still want for McLaren, Ferrari and Williams to be in the hunt for great results, as well as all other teams. Sauber became my darling team over the last decade when Peter came back to save it from becoming a distant memory because I never imagined Sauber would ever leave after BMW bought the team. However, once their future became uncertain I sincerely felt a sense of inexplicable loss. The old adage of you don't know what you've got until it's gone somehow always manages to ring true and when Sauber's future hung in the balance, I realized how much they meant to me and the sport in general.

And although Minardi is no longer the same team, some semblance of it's heart and soul is still alive and kicking in Toro Rosso and the fact they still make the best coffee in all of F1 is telling that soul is still living within the sport, though I really miss the uniquely gorgeous cars they'd churn out without the influence of a mother team. And while so many newbies have no issues with some teams being gone, if it wasn't for those little privateer teams many supreme talents would have never been discovered, many of whom are regarded as all-time greats.

So no, Ferrari cannot just gherkin off and neither can McLaren or Williams, or Sauber for that matter, and I'll add Force India as they too have a deep, rich history in the sport and the sport is better off with them than without. And while I feel a certain affinity towards Renault, they've flip-flopped with being IN… No OUT!… No IN… No OUT!… No IN, that they made it difficult for me to grow attached to them and though they have a rich history within the sport, sadly, them I can take or leave, and due to their self serving primadona-ist demanding attitude, I wouldn't necessarily cry if Mercedes packed it in and left.

I still Miss Honda and even Toyota because although not terribly successful, they came to play according to the rules and I don't remember them trying to change them in their favor as far as I recall and they never stopped working to improve.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 12:14 am
Posts: 110
Location: Salisbury, Wiltshire UK
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Part of the problem is that there is a solid percentage of people who actually condone this current culture of placating the largest manufacturer teams. Even among fans there are those who claim the F1 has to bend over backwards for Ferrari and that the Ferrari quit threat should be treated like someone has taken your family hostage. There are people who actually believe that F1 aught to bend the knee to the Ferraris and Mercedes of the world. Ironically, these same people are often the first to complain about the boring and uninspiring races...

As far as I know Ferrari threatened to leave because if the direction the sport has gone in the last 10 years, so their position is the correct one in my view.
They didn't want the V6Hybrids, they wanted a more purist engine formula. Mercedes was a huge proponent for changing things up so it's more relevant to their consumer product because they are the only true volume manufacturer in the sport. As such, I feel the sport's governing body should have said he guys, we want you in our sport, but you're just one team vs, 13 others so you're the ones who need to suck it up and adhere to the rules or you have the option to leave. And thanks to Mercedes' Renault if I remember correctly then jumped on the same bandwagon, at a time when they didn't even field a works team. which then made it 2 teams vs everyone else which still placed them in the vast minority. And while I do realize this enticed Honda to jump back into the sandbox, I'm pretty sure they were coming back to F1 regardless. And given their V10's and V8's were such solid engines, they would have more than likely fared far better building a N/A configuration as opposed to this complex V6 Hybrid – which has taken them 5 years to get close to right – at an astronomically greater cost than if it had been straight up N/A technology.

And while for the most part I could do without Mercedes in F1, I don't think the sport should ever be absent of Ferrari, McLaren or Williams (Sauber too). They are the 3 most successful and longest tenured teams in the sport and losing either one of them (for me) would be a crushing blow! I am a fan of the sport first and though I have my favorite drivers, I still want for McLaren, Ferrari and Williams to be in the hunt for great results, as well as all other teams. Sauber became my darling team over the last decade when Peter came back to save it from becoming a distant memory because I never imagined Sauber would ever leave after BMW bought the team. However, once their future became uncertain I sincerely felt a sense of inexplicable loss. The old adage of you don't know what you've got until it's gone somehow always manages to ring true and when Sauber's future hung in the balance, I realized how much they meant to me and the sport in general.

And although Minardi is no longer the same team, some semblance of it's heart and soul is still alive and kicking in Toro Rosso and the fact they still make the best coffee in all of F1 is telling that soul is still living within the sport, though I really miss the uniquely gorgeous cars they'd churn out without the influence of a mother team. And while so many newbies have no issues with some teams being gone, if it wasn't for those little privateer teams many supreme talents would have never been discovered, many of whom are regarded as all-time greats.

So no, Ferrari cannot just gherkin off and neither can McLaren or Williams, or Sauber for that matter, and I'll add Force India as they too have a deep, rich history in the sport and the sport is better off with them than without. And while I feel a certain affinity towards Renault, they've flip-flopped with being IN… No OUT!… No IN… No OUT!… No IN, that they made it difficult for me to grow attached to them and though they have a rich history within the sport, sadly, them I can take or leave, and due to their self serving primadona-ist demanding attitude, I wouldn't necessarily cry if Mercedes packed it in and left.

I still Miss Honda and even Toyota because although not terribly successful, they came to play according to the rules and I don't remember them trying to change them in their favor as far as I recall and they never stopped working to improve.
Agree with absolutely all of that.

And pretty much everything in this thread to be honest.

Used to think "nah Ferrari can go if they want to throw their toys out of their pram" but you're right, I honestly think I'd miss them sooooo much more than if Mercedes were to pack up and go. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1582
Zoue wrote:
Alex53 wrote:
Anyone who has followed racing for even a short while could see these aero regulations would make close racing harder, not easier.

If they truly want to reduce costs, enhance the racing and keep manufacturers happy by focusing on developing in road relevant areas, it's simple, tiny, simplified wings, maybe even standardised. Turning speeds need to go down, breaking distances increase, driver input entering corners make a bigger difference, and then we will see better racing.

Problem is that increasing braking distances will never be agreed on safety grounds. We had reduced cornering speeds when the hybrids were introduced but almost to a man the drivers complained that the cars were no longer fun to drive. I know some will say "so what" but I don't think the solution is to make it unpleasant for the participants.

Wings is an interesting debate. It's my understanding that this is an area where the teams offer some of the biggest resistance, seeing it as one of the biggest areas for differentiation between teams' performances. Personally, I'm against standardizing of anything as I don't think it belongs in F1. We have Indy for that.

Dirty air appears to be the biggest problem, so they need to focus mainly on overcoming that IMO. I don't think speed in itself is an issue. But maybe mandating simpler front wings would be a start, as would investigating more ground effect options so that the car is less sensitive on the air in front.


So What!
The purpose should be to make the racing better - not for the drivers to have an enjoyable drive.

They don't have to standardise things to make things competitive. They can set rules that are sort of self limiting. Normally aspirated engines is an example. They are limited by how much air they can get into the engine.
They could define a box for the wing to fit into and that they can only use one profile across the wing.
By setting the rules correctly, thay could reduce costs and limit the variation between the cars performances.

They need to have good race cars and tracks that allow racing to take place.

They need the drivers to be at least as big a difference in performance as the cars. That might require cars that are difficult to drive fast. They need to reduce the huge backup teams. The driver and the car should be by far the biggest factor in performance. The driver should be managing most of his race. Things like this increase the differences between driver performances.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23685
babararacucudada wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Alex53 wrote:
Anyone who has followed racing for even a short while could see these aero regulations would make close racing harder, not easier.

If they truly want to reduce costs, enhance the racing and keep manufacturers happy by focusing on developing in road relevant areas, it's simple, tiny, simplified wings, maybe even standardised. Turning speeds need to go down, breaking distances increase, driver input entering corners make a bigger difference, and then we will see better racing.

Problem is that increasing braking distances will never be agreed on safety grounds. We had reduced cornering speeds when the hybrids were introduced but almost to a man the drivers complained that the cars were no longer fun to drive. I know some will say "so what" but I don't think the solution is to make it unpleasant for the participants.

Wings is an interesting debate. It's my understanding that this is an area where the teams offer some of the biggest resistance, seeing it as one of the biggest areas for differentiation between teams' performances. Personally, I'm against standardizing of anything as I don't think it belongs in F1. We have Indy for that.

Dirty air appears to be the biggest problem, so they need to focus mainly on overcoming that IMO. I don't think speed in itself is an issue. But maybe mandating simpler front wings would be a start, as would investigating more ground effect options so that the car is less sensitive on the air in front.


So What!
The purpose should be to make the racing better - not for the drivers to have an enjoyable drive.

They don't have to standardise things to make things competitive. They can set rules that are sort of self limiting. Normally aspirated engines is an example. They are limited by how much air they can get into the engine.
They could define a box for the wing to fit into and that they can only use one profile across the wing.
By setting the rules correctly, thay could reduce costs and limit the variation between the cars performances.

They need to have good race cars and tracks that allow racing to take place.

They need the drivers to be at least as big a difference in performance as the cars. That might require cars that are difficult to drive fast. They need to reduce the huge backup teams. The driver and the car should be by far the biggest factor in performance. The driver should be managing most of his race. Things like this increase the differences between driver performances.

To the first point: like I said, I don't think the solution is to make it a chore for the participants.

Fully agree that if the rules were better thought out they could make a lot of gains. Not entirely convinced about N/A engines, though. I don't see a problem with having a turbo and I've long supported the idea of a twin-turbo for F1 in place of these hybrids. Trouble is Pandora's Box has been opened and I don't think it's realistic to want to close it now. That's the argument they give for not having manual gears, for example, so can't see them turning back the clock on the hybrids.

But yeah, some of the over-complication they have is killing the sport


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6294
babararacucudada wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
babararacucudada wrote:
What is entertainment in F1?

According to the Monaco GP - there is no pressure to have a race at all. The most interesting part of the race was seeing just how much slower Ricciardo could drive and still not be overtaken. It will not be a race next year either - yet it is OK because of what it brings to F1. I'm not sure what it actually brings that is so valuable.

Then there is the thrill of the secret technology which the top teams are using, but it's a secret, so you get some bits of it that leak out. How many people who watch F1 are thrilled by the technology that goes into fuel saving and reliability?

Strategy is entertaining? DRS usage, battery usage, fuel usage, tyre usage, engine usage. Using customer teams to help works teams. Team orders.

Other sports try to become more entertaining - not less entertaining. Tennis has tie breaks, limited challenges, Hawkeye and has maintained a level playing field. There is team work, but the contestant has to compete almost entirely based on their own ability.

NFL is an even better example of a Sport run to provide the best Show for the fans.

F1 is a mess at the moment, but I do think the new owners realise that and are trying to make some improvements. Monaco is an example of what they are up against.


I see what you are saying, but how can you equate F1 with other sports, even from the show point of view? Other motorsports maybe, but not other sports in general. For example, the NFL (as well as the NBA) does an All Star game, purely to please the fans. This would be impossible in F1. Unless for one extra race without points at the end of the season you shuffle all the drivers and each can drive another car! Sounds a bit like apples and oranges, unless I don't get your example, in which case I'd like to ask you to elaborate if you could.

Regarding other motorsports, there is definitely room to improve. I remember in NASCAR they do an interview with the driver while he is driving in a warm up lap (or something like that, I am not really following it). This would be amazing to chat to a driver while they are circling the circuit.

There are definitely ideas that can be copied, I'm looking forward to Liberty taking initiatives. It will be strange to change F1, but how much worse could it be?


When I started to follow F1, I did so by reading in a Motorsports newspaper. Now the world is different and they are mostly supplying a TV audience. That puts them in competition with other sports which are vying for a lot of the same viewers IMO. Apart from competing with other sports, they could be competing in terms of entertainment. I don't watch much live F1 and even the highlights show on Ch4 (despite their best efforts - which I consider a good effort) IMO struggle to create some excitement.

IMO F1 doesn't even know what it is trying to be. Is it a competitive sport? Is it an glamorous money spending engineering Show? Is it an avenue for advertisements? Is it a semi-reality Show?

It is not focused on being a high quality competitive sport.


I am not sure it is competing against other sports for entertainment. What I mean is that one doesn't exclude the other; I like bot basketball and F1, one doesn't stop me watching the other. And the World Cup is on, I'll watch that too. Maybe that's me, but the forum posters here all watch other sports; a look in the off topic section sports an NFL thread at the very top. There was also a footie thread, a Superbowl, etc.

Myself I don't watch it much either these days, for me they should return on the normal TV for me to get to watch it again. I am not going to shell loads of money for Sky and other packages, I am not able to watch it every weekend to justify the costs.

I agree with the last bit, they need to make their mind up


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6294
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Part of the problem is that there is a solid percentage of people who actually condone this current culture of placating the largest manufacturer teams. Even among fans there are those who claim the F1 has to bend over backwards for Ferrari and that the Ferrari quit threat should be treated like someone has taken your family hostage. There are people who actually believe that F1 aught to bend the knee to the Ferraris and Mercedes of the world. Ironically, these same people are often the first to complain about the boring and uninspiring races...

As far as I know Ferrari threatened to leave because if the direction the sport has gone in the last 10 years, so their position is the correct one in my view.
They didn't want the V6Hybrids, they wanted a more purist engine formula. Mercedes was a huge proponent for changing things up so it's more relevant to their consumer product because they are the only true volume manufacturer in the sport. As such, I feel the sport's governing body should have said he guys, we want you in our sport, but you're just one team vs, 13 others so you're the ones who need to suck it up and adhere to the rules or you have the option to leave. And thanks to Mercedes' Renault if I remember correctly then jumped on the same bandwagon, at a time when they didn't even field a works team. which then made it 2 teams vs everyone else which still placed them in the vast minority. And while I do realize this enticed Honda to jump back into the sandbox, I'm pretty sure they were coming back to F1 regardless. And given their V10's and V8's were such solid engines, they would have more than likely fared far better building a N/A configuration as opposed to this complex V6 Hybrid – which has taken them 5 years to get close to right – at an astronomically greater cost than if it had been straight up N/A technology.

And while for the most part I could do without Mercedes in F1, I don't think the sport should ever be absent of Ferrari, McLaren or Williams (Sauber too). They are the 3 most successful and longest tenured teams in the sport and losing either one of them (for me) would be a crushing blow! I am a fan of the sport first and though I have my favorite drivers, I still want for McLaren, Ferrari and Williams to be in the hunt for great results, as well as all other teams. Sauber became my darling team over the last decade when Peter came back to save it from becoming a distant memory because I never imagined Sauber would ever leave after BMW bought the team. However, once their future became uncertain I sincerely felt a sense of inexplicable loss. The old adage of you don't know what you've got until it's gone somehow always manages to ring true and when Sauber's future hung in the balance, I realized how much they meant to me and the sport in general.

And although Minardi is no longer the same team, some semblance of it's heart and soul is still alive and kicking in Toro Rosso and the fact they still make the best coffee in all of F1 is telling that soul is still living within the sport, though I really miss the uniquely gorgeous cars they'd churn out without the influence of a mother team. And while so many newbies have no issues with some teams being gone, if it wasn't for those little privateer teams many supreme talents would have never been discovered, many of whom are regarded as all-time greats.

So no, Ferrari cannot just gherkin off and neither can McLaren or Williams, or Sauber for that matter, and I'll add Force India as they too have a deep, rich history in the sport and the sport is better off with them than without. And while I feel a certain affinity towards Renault, they've flip-flopped with being IN… No OUT!… No IN… No OUT!… No IN, that they made it difficult for me to grow attached to them and though they have a rich history within the sport, sadly, them I can take or leave, and due to their self serving primadona-ist demanding attitude, I wouldn't necessarily cry if Mercedes packed it in and left.

I still Miss Honda and even Toyota because although not terribly successful, they came to play according to the rules and I don't remember them trying to change them in their favor as far as I recall and they never stopped working to improve.


That's some serious inside information!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5307
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Part of the problem is that there is a solid percentage of people who actually condone this current culture of placating the largest manufacturer teams. Even among fans there are those who claim the F1 has to bend over backwards for Ferrari and that the Ferrari quit threat should be treated like someone has taken your family hostage. There are people who actually believe that F1 aught to bend the knee to the Ferraris and Mercedes of the world. Ironically, these same people are often the first to complain about the boring and uninspiring races...

As far as I know Ferrari threatened to leave because if the direction the sport has gone in the last 10 years, so their position is the correct one in my view.
They didn't want the V6Hybrids, they wanted a more purist engine formula. Mercedes was a huge proponent for changing things up so it's more relevant to their consumer product because they are the only true volume manufacturer in the sport. As such, I feel the sport's governing body should have said he guys, we want you in our sport, but you're just one team vs, 13 others so you're the ones who need to suck it up and adhere to the rules or you have the option to leave. And thanks to Mercedes' Renault if I remember correctly then jumped on the same bandwagon, at a time when they didn't even field a works team. which then made it 2 teams vs everyone else which still placed them in the vast minority. And while I do realize this enticed Honda to jump back into the sandbox, I'm pretty sure they were coming back to F1 regardless. And given their V10's and V8's were such solid engines, they would have more than likely fared far better building a N/A configuration as opposed to this complex V6 Hybrid – which has taken them 5 years to get close to right – at an astronomically greater cost than if it had been straight up N/A technology.

And while for the most part I could do without Mercedes in F1, I don't think the sport should ever be absent of Ferrari, McLaren or Williams (Sauber too). They are the 3 most successful and longest tenured teams in the sport and losing either one of them (for me) would be a crushing blow! I am a fan of the sport first and though I have my favorite drivers, I still want for McLaren, Ferrari and Williams to be in the hunt for great results, as well as all other teams. Sauber became my darling team over the last decade when Peter came back to save it from becoming a distant memory because I never imagined Sauber would ever leave after BMW bought the team. However, once their future became uncertain I sincerely felt a sense of inexplicable loss. The old adage of you don't know what you've got until it's gone somehow always manages to ring true and when Sauber's future hung in the balance, I realized how much they meant to me and the sport in general.

And although Minardi is no longer the same team, some semblance of it's heart and soul is still alive and kicking in Toro Rosso and the fact they still make the best coffee in all of F1 is telling that soul is still living within the sport, though I really miss the uniquely gorgeous cars they'd churn out without the influence of a mother team. And while so many newbies have no issues with some teams being gone, if it wasn't for those little privateer teams many supreme talents would have never been discovered, many of whom are regarded as all-time greats.

So no, Ferrari cannot just gherkin off and neither can McLaren or Williams, or Sauber for that matter, and I'll add Force India as they too have a deep, rich history in the sport and the sport is better off with them than without. And while I feel a certain affinity towards Renault, they've flip-flopped with being IN… No OUT!… No IN… No OUT!… No IN, that they made it difficult for me to grow attached to them and though they have a rich history within the sport, sadly, them I can take or leave, and due to their self serving primadona-ist demanding attitude, I wouldn't necessarily cry if Mercedes packed it in and left.

I still Miss Honda and even Toyota because although not terribly successful, they came to play according to the rules and I don't remember them trying to change them in their favor as far as I recall and they never stopped working to improve.

Great post but I have to rebut some of your sentiment here. I'm reminded of something my father told me about relationships with women when I was too young to fully understand what he meant. He said, "Son, the moment you decide you can't live without her is the moment she's got you by the balls." Of course, what he was trying to convey to my young mind, was the fact that feeling like you can't go on without someone (or some thing) gives that person (or thing) tremendous power over you and that you should actively avoid putting yourself in that situation. I think that lesson applies here. I fully agree that having the old teams remain in the sport is the ideal outcome but I don't think you achieve that by altering the way you govern the sport to placate them. You have to be willing to watch them walk out the door.

I agree with your overall assessment about the engines. The move to these more "road-relevant" hybrid engines has been a disaster on a lot of levels. Interestingly, performance isn't one of them. The engines perform just fine. The problem is that they are too complicated, too expensive and too quiet. All three of those things hurt the sport. I would personally love to see a return to NA tech but it seems the manufacturers are not willing to invest in that anymore. That's the scary part; the realization that the sport I love is probably never going to be back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1310
Location: Far side of Koozebane
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
As far as I know Ferrari threatened to leave because if the direction the sport has gone in the last 10 years, so their position is the correct one in my view.
They didn't want the V6Hybrids, they wanted a more purist engine formula. Mercedes was a huge proponent for changing things up so it's more relevant to their consumer product because they are the only true volume manufacturer in the sport. As such, I feel the sport's governing body should have said he guys, we want you in our sport, but you're just one team vs, 13 others so you're the ones who need to suck it up and adhere to the rules or you have the option to leave. And thanks to Mercedes' Renault if I remember correctly then jumped on the same bandwagon, at a time when they didn't even field a works team. which then made it 2 teams vs everyone else which still placed them in the vast minority. And while I do realize this enticed Honda to jump back into the sandbox, I'm pretty sure they were coming back to F1 regardless. And given their V10's and V8's were such solid engines, they would have more than likely fared far better building a N/A configuration as opposed to this complex V6 Hybrid – which has taken them 5 years to get close to right – at an astronomically greater cost than if it had been straight up N/A technology.

And while for the most part I could do without Mercedes in F1, I don't think the sport should ever be absent of Ferrari, McLaren or Williams (Sauber too). They are the 3 most successful and longest tenured teams in the sport and losing either one of them (for me) would be a crushing blow! I am a fan of the sport first and though I have my favorite drivers, I still want for McLaren, Ferrari and Williams to be in the hunt for great results, as well as all other teams. Sauber became my darling team over the last decade when Peter came back to save it from becoming a distant memory because I never imagined Sauber would ever leave after BMW bought the team. However, once their future became uncertain I sincerely felt a sense of inexplicable loss. The old adage of you don't know what you've got until it's gone somehow always manages to ring true and when Sauber's future hung in the balance, I realized how much they meant to me and the sport in general.

And although Minardi is no longer the same team, some semblance of it's heart and soul is still alive and kicking in Toro Rosso and the fact they still make the best coffee in all of F1 is telling that soul is still living within the sport, though I really miss the uniquely gorgeous cars they'd churn out without the influence of a mother team. And while so many newbies have no issues with some teams being gone, if it wasn't for those little privateer teams many supreme talents would have never been discovered, many of whom are regarded as all-time greats.

So no, Ferrari cannot just gherkin off and neither can McLaren or Williams, or Sauber for that matter, and I'll add Force India as they too have a deep, rich history in the sport and the sport is better off with them than without. And while I feel a certain affinity towards Renault, they've flip-flopped with being IN… No OUT!… No IN… No OUT!… No IN, that they made it difficult for me to grow attached to them and though they have a rich history within the sport, sadly, them I can take or leave, and due to their self serving primadona-ist demanding attitude, I wouldn't necessarily cry if Mercedes packed it in and left.

I still Miss Honda and even Toyota because although not terribly successful, they came to play according to the rules and I don't remember them trying to change them in their favor as far as I recall and they never stopped working to improve.


But this is the thing isn't it.

Ferrari threaten to leave if Liberty and the FIA head towards a NASCAR style of racing.

Merc & Renault threaten to leave if hybrid engines aren't introduced.

Red Bull threaten to leave because they're not winning every race anymore, or they can't get the engine they want, or they don't like the engine they've got, or they don't like proposed changes to aero regs, or they don't like engine development restrictions, or Deitrich Mateschitz had a blue with his missus. It's a typical spoilt brat attitude. Those that have everything want everything and those that have little only want a fair go.

Teams should, and I think must, have input into the direction of the sport, but they should not be able to hold the sport to ransom nor dictate the direction of the sport. It's criminal how much power some teams have in this sport, especially as those very teams, with the possible exception of Ferrari, will leave the sport when they have no further use for it.

No team should be bigger than the sport. Not McLaren, not Williams, not Sauber, not Ferrari and certainly not Merc, Renault or Red Bull. I dearly miss Brabham & Lotus. Those were two teams with a rich & successful heritage. Two teams who deserved to survived but two teams who gradually slipped away as the sport left them behind and eventually disappeared. Every team should be equal when it comes to having the opportunity to compete against each other on a level playing field but every team should know they are expendable. As long as the rules are fair and equitable, and at the moment they're far from it, then a teams success or failure should be determined by that teams various departments and not via some edict or lopsided deal with a competitor team due to atrocious regulations that were introduced under the threats of those very teams that are now holding the other teams and the sport for ransom.

Liberty & the FIA, in consultation with stakeholders, should be making the rules that are fair and equitable and if any team opposes those rules, then it should be "Well these are the rules, you either compete under those rules or there's the exit".

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


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

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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

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