Why it's time for F1 to think single-make Audiences are decreasing, and the level of criticism of Formula 1 is increasing. It's time to think the unthinkable before it's too late Why it's time for F1 to think single-make - F1 - Autosport Plus a candid article from from Ben Anderson, BBC commentator. This is not going to be well received in some quarters, I know. The influence of the car being 70% in the final results, and the drivers input only 30%, according to some, how long the present formula will be able to determine the BEST driver each year? Many series have become one-make series; should F1 follow?
I disagree making F1 single make. Defies the whole point of the sport. If we think away the Mercedes, we have Ferrari and RBR very close to each other, quickly followed by Williams, STR, Mclaren and Force India all close to each other. Even the field behind follows close and the battles are entertaining. How to make F1 more exciting? Take a look at what Stefan Johannson proposed in regards to technical regs. Less complicated wings, more venturi tunnels, more tire. And what Vettel and others have said. Throw in an engine that the fans will enjoy. I know there'll be one user here saying that others actually like the sound, but it's very clear very few people like it. Bring driver skill in it properly, have an NA V12, 4 liters or thereabouts revving to 14-15k, an ERS system to keep the greens happy. A manual gearbox, it's another simple element that will separate the men from the boys. I'm sure there'll be people to disagree with me, that F1 needs to be the technical engineering wankfest because all of it is beneficial to road cars...but we have Le Mans for that. Much more freedom for technical stuff there, and more relevant to the road cars as well. Having lost cigarette sponsorship, and surely alcohol ban soon as well (as if it makes us drink or smoke any less, but whatever), there'll be less money available to teams again. Mercedes has an obscene 1500+ people working for them in the F1 section alone (in contrast, Ferrari has around 600 and red bull even less at around 500), some form of cost control has to come in surely. Simpler engines mean MUCH cheaper costs, and also allows manufacturers like Cosworth or Judd to come into the sport again, providing an alternative engine for (poorer) F1 teams. The V10's, still in the constant development era, where around £150k for an entire engine. Imagine how much cheaper they are when they effectively don't have much development but they are simple things. At 15K revs they should last relatively long, have plenty of power (ERS system fills in the gap at low rpm). With simpler aerodynamics a load of costs will be saved there as well. Teams are still free in the design of wings, body, venturi tunnels etc, they'll just be simpler allowing closer racing, which in turn should mean more skilled overtakes. Get rid of DRS. Is my idea heading towards single make? Maybe a bit. But it's to save the sport (and engineers) from itself. It'll be much harder to have a (much) faster car like we've seen in the last few years, but that means the cars themselves will be a lot closer, meaning the drivers will make the difference. Furthermore, with closer racing, great noise, great cars...fans will come in their droves!
Equalise engine output energy. That would remove the biggest differentiator today. Single make is not appropriate for F1 as it would remove one of the most fundamental purposes of the formula.
You may have a point, but let's not forget that the FIA's ancestor, created F1 as a World Drivers Championship first, back in 1950. The World Constructors Championship came about only in 1958. The term "constructor" was truly genuine in the 50s, when most of the cars were made in-house by Alfa, Ferrari, Maserati, Gordini, Mercedes, BRM, Vanwall, Connaught, ERA, etc... The definition of "constructor" became somehow stretched in the late 50s, when teams like Cooper, Lotus, started to outsource major components in the cars: engine, gearbox. It was decided that whoever made the chassis was the constructor of the car. Later, Brabham, McLaren, Williams and many others were accepted as "constructors". That was an interpretation of the rules that railed Enzo Ferrari who called them " garagists". I can see his point. When BRM closed, the Scuderia was left as the only genuine constructor in F1; a fact that probably explains its popularity. Apart from Ferrari carrying the flag alone, do we still have constructors these days, or merely teams? Do not be fooled by Mercedes and Renault; they are merely brands that take temporary ownership of their contractors to justify the name. My point is that mixing WDC and WCC in the same championship leads the importance given to the later becoming detrimental to the former. Objectively, a competition wishing to determine who's the best driver should consider giving them the same playing level, no? The way I see it going, the importance of cars in F1 is slowly overshadowing the drivers to an extend. Matter for thoughts, I think ...
I think when the V8's where fully developed and then frozen, the biggest difference was 20hp between the best and worst engines. All engines had their strengths and weaknesses, so it was good to watch IMO. The only thing they got wrong was the wings, so many elements on them ruining the racing somewhat. Look until early 2000s, when front wing development wasn't as advanced (and engines relatively close in performance). Cars where able to follow for lap after lap, and it was terribly exciting imo. Did we have much overtaking? Perhaps not, but the skill of respective drivers to either make a pass or keep one behind was fantastic to see. Strategy was part of the killer of racing at that time, teams often making a clever (or bad) strategy and winning/losing positions. I wonder if we would've seen more overtaking was there no refueling...I'm sure there would've been to a point. DRS is a current necessary evil, because of the idiotic wings. But the passes are much less skillful. Going completely spec racing is NOT the answer either, I watch GP2 a lot and there have been races that are complete ****ing **** due to not being able to overtake. Some variables are keen, whether that is a small aero advantage (and the driver skillful enough to exploit it) or small engine performance (or indeed, less engine power but using less fuel, meaning less weight to carry throughout the race).
This won't work. NASCAR isn't quite single make...but it's close, and it's viewership numbers have gone down every year since they pinched out the COTA. Return F1 to being a pure sprint series. Get rid of the dumb tire rules, the dumb Prius powerplants, and let the drivers go as fast as they bloody can for two hours. Bring back V-10's and limit output with metal valve springs. Get rid of the flappy paddle gearbox. Limit electronics to fuel and spark. Dump the KERS/ERS/DRS/WTFBBQ in the bin. Dump all telemetry from car to pit. This is all pretty cheap, too. Aside from the metal valve springs, everyone has engineering plans for fully developed V-10's. No more tokens and disallowing actual competition. FIA won't do anything reasonable, though. They'll fiddle with it and dink around until they've done to it what they did to the WRC.
To me, it's the importance of aero that is killing F1. Aerodymanics is the bane of motor racing, because many see it at the area where there is most to gain, but it's destroying F1, in my modest opinion. For a start, too many aero is allowed in the rules; too much downforce, too much turbulences for following cars limiting close racing, overtaking, etc... That restricts clean and proper racing, as I can see. Second, the rules have allowed a war between teams researching new improvements and constantly developing new components during the season. That has become a massive part of their budget and created a bigger gap between well funded teams and others. Some teams have 1/3 of their staff working on aero!!! Between wind tunnel, research, design, simulation, fabrication, testing, etc... I find it strange that the FIA (and the teams signed for it !!!) devised a token system for power-unit development, but let the aero almost free of such restriction!!
Completely the exact opposite of what should happen. The sport needs less regulation, not more. It's practically a spec car series already. Why do these people insist on ignoring the problems with ridiculous proposals like this? Edit: I fully agree with William's point above re: aero. More power, more tire, less aero.....this is what F1 needs, along with opening up engine architecture rules. Come on, boys, this isn't that difficult!
I'd love to have a go at running the sport. Bash some heads together, make the sport awesome. Happy days.
The fact is that F1 decisions are made by big business, nor the spectators. Carmakers, and sponsors are the ones who influence the rules. Most carmakers aren't interested in putting money in a series based on screaming multi-cylinder atmospheric engines, when those are threatened of extinction by increasing environment regulations. It's as simple as that. So, at the moment their money is in using F1 as a showcase for their achievements in hybrid technology. It may not look so exiting, but that's where the future is. As a Dutch, you may know about the treat to ban the sale of ANY combustion engine in the Netherlands from 2025. Do you think reviving a series with screaming V10 or V12 makes sense, when 20 years down the line, all cars will have to be electric or hybrid at least in Europe? Do you expect the stakeholders in F1 to go down that line ?
It's only the Norwegians pushing it through (trying), and I've read that even some of the greenies in Holland think it's not attainable. Why enter a racing series racing at 200mph+, when legally speaking it's only allowed to go to a third of that almost everywhere (except some places in Germany, and even then insurance won't pay out if you've been speeding significantly)? Racing actually makes very little sense. Stakeholders in F1 want the series to be as profitable as possible. That means lots of viewers. Current spec is losing viewers at a VAST rate. Going electric will take away 90% I'm sure. So that's not good for the sport. ITV just gave up their support for Formula E. Presumably it's because 12 people watch it. AFAIK Formula E is free to enter, anyone can walk up and view the race life. Hardly anyone goes. In reality, a conglomerate such as Mercedes leaving the sport wont matter much to the stake holders. It's not money out of their pocket. Lets say we go back to NA V12, manual etc and the racing becomes closer and more excellent. Logically, viewers will return. That means more money, thus it's in the best interest of the stakeholders. The world may go on their electric ''green'' mission, but when the car was invented, people didn't stop riding horses. I still see horses quite often. There are still horse competition. The technology may be outdated but it's still being used. Formula 1 shouldn't confuse itself and go with the tecnology all the way. We have other series for that (Formula E). Manufacturers wishing to display their know-how should go to the Le Mans instead, where engine, fuel, aspiration and design, is free. Hence, if the sport becomes somewhat cheaper (still with the old tech NA engines), and gains more viewers because of it, huge companies leaving the sport (Mercedes, perhaps Renault again at some point) will be replaced by others, who can now afford to play.
The way I see it, series with traditional atmo engines will only exist in historic racing in decades to come. There are even series based on "continuation" models: 2016 cars built on 1960 design! You may wish to ignore it, but the combustion engine is seriously under threat. You cannot expect major concerns to invest in old technologies to keep the nostalgics happy. Who is going to invest to bring back V10 and V12 atmos in F1? As for viewers, they are told what to like. If they stop watching F1, the audience will soon be captured by other entertainments. Some sports that used to be big business have completely disappeared from our screens: air racing, speedway, clay pigeon shooting, etc... But TV channels haven't gone out of business, have they? We are all missing something the past, in one way, but let's face it, the future is ahead. The clocks don't go back. Some embrace progress, some accept it, and others resist it. As for horse racing, it wouldn't survive without the oxygen of betting. But I don't want to upset you anymore today !!!
F1 will kill itself as soon as the audiences decrease in person and on TV. Then the advertising dries up and that's the end. What will replace it probably will be more of a spec series with 3 or 4 engine manufacturers involved like Ford, Honda, Ferrari, Mercedes, and Renault. F1 is surviving today because of what most of us dislike about it -- races expanding in the Middle East and Asia to bring in new audiences. It's all about the eyeballs.
The issue is that F1 is simply not exciting. IMO the problem is with car makers agenda, engine technology, GPs moving to Government sponsored venues. Ownership of F1 with Bernie selling first to Kirche, the bankruptcy and acquisition by CVC is also another chapter of what has gone wrong. As a fan it does not matter how efficient or road relevant are the cars and engines sorry power units. It´s excitement and closer competition that matters. F1 audience is decreasing because the sport is boring. Young fans are not coming because the sport is boring. I think we have seen the better of F1.
I am not going to argue with you about ITV, or the decline in viewers for Formula E.I just don't know the figures. I went to the first race last year at Battersea, London, and it was packed. I cannot estimate the size of the crowd. I also watched the other races worldwide on TV, and they looked well attended to me. I am not saying they are on a par with F1, but I think Formula E attract a different audience. Also, Formula E's problem, is that it runs on temporary tracks in cities, and frankly some are not suitable. They are very bumpy, too narrow, etc... and cause too much compromise. Also, they upset some town-dwellers who don't like to see their streets taken over by motor racing, with all the chaos that brings. I imagine that if Formula E was allowed to race at Brands Hatch rather than Battersea, or Magny Cours rather than Paris, the competition would be better. Also, major companies from the US, China, India seem to invest in Formula E, also Renault, Audi, and recently Jaguar; I wonder why ... Formula E hasn't completely convinced me, but if it becomes the only alternative in an improved version why not? There will be electric rally-cross soon, and electric dragster series soon, I read ...
I would agree with this but part of the problem is there is no competition and hasn't been for over 3 years. When you see one team run away at the beginning of the season and you know the next 18 races are going to be pretty much the same, as soon as you see the same two cars on the top of qualification you know you don't even need to watch. The cars look ugly (I think they are working to address this next year), sound pitiful (so they plan to fix it with artificial sounds -- good luck with that one), most of the tracks have no personality or interesting features, and the only drama is the facial expressions of the drivers after the races (or their hair color).
Agreed. I think testing is where Schumacher really made much of the difference during his dominant years. He was relentless with testing and did much of it personally. As a result, he knew the car like the back of his hand and it was developed exactly in line with what he wanted. All the best, Andrew.
I think so too. I would have liked to pass on the interest to my sons, but there is no passion anymore to transmit ...
All that is gone out of the window now. Testing is delivered on a drip feed. All you are allowed is many hours on uninspiring simulators, and them you should be able to step in the car and adapt immediately to any change done on the car since the last GP. I think it's what ruins the career of many newcomers to F1.
