I really don't care about the Springsteen/Federer analogy but I get it: The way to fix F1 - Part 1 (Learning from Springsteen and Federer) - Pitpass.com Maybe.....just maybe....the admin(Rob Lay) and/or Moderators can come up with some way of getting the Um-hum "veterans" to come up with "ways of fixing F1" with various aspects of F1 and then getting a consensus from all us of here to vote thereby presenting it to Liberty????? just a thought
Focus on the fans (those at the track and watching from afar) and everything else will fall into place. The powers that be in F1 seem to be getting that. Todt and the guys at the FIA? Not so much. -F
Its really hard to come up with a way to "fix" something when you really don't have all the figures .... you can say what you think will work, but until you can see a real P&L... its all just talk. I'm talking about the P&L of FOM, FIA, Teams, Circuits/ Promoters... that is the issue. and nobody is going to release all that. perhaps Ferrari & MB, Renault can to a degree since they are public companies....
Yet, Ex WDC winner Jacques Villeneuve said that F1 was wrong to listen to the fans, because they don't know what they want, and they don't understand the complexity of F1. He quotes as example DRS which was introduced because the fans lamented the "lack of overtaking" in a race. The FIA introduced DRS, which doesn't reflect on the driver's ability to overtake. DRS merely allows a car following closely to shed some of its downforce to gain extra speed and overtake at the end of a straight. According to some, and surely Villeneuve is one of them, it makes racing more artificial and cut out the skill of overtaking. F1 is what it is; not everybody likes it.
Except you forget that manufacturers have a significant say....... F1 has always been at the forefront of car technology and development. If F1 decides for instance to go back to the days of N/A engines it will leave one of it's fundamentals. Car tech, increasingly so, is moving towards hybrid and electric tech. Mercedes and Renault invest because they get more out of it than just racing. Simple one seaters with n/a engines and not a lot of downforce won't be F1 anymore, it'll be more like GP1.....
Near the end: "So. Lesson one. Sort the funding model. Make it possible to run a back of the grid team at a profit. Make it possible to run a circuit at a profit." I would add, make it possible for a working stiff to afford a whole weekend at a F1 venue.
Well, he can choose not to listen to the fans but when they make their voice heard by not going to the venue or clicking off the telly, what the heck is F1 going to do, race around in empty venues for goodness sake? Where the heck does Villeneuve think all the money comes from, some kind of Bernie money tree? Yes, there is complication and countering needs in all this. F1 is about high technology but also it has to be viable and cheap enough for more than just one or two manufacturers to race week after week. Yes, F1 (Liberty Media) has to make money but also the teams and the venues and the manufacturers and the whole lot have to make money too. So yes, it's complicated. But regardless if it's too complicated for the fans to understand or not, their needs have to be served. That's the bottom line. No, I didn't forget that. They are complicit in the formula as well. And they made the bet to change the formula to accommodate more mainstream brands (Mercedes). The problem is, they, the manufacturers, the FIA, seemed to have not considered the downside to adopting such a formula. Or they thought the downside would not be that large. Looks like they placed a bad bet. So they are left with a series that has a big player in it (Mercedes) but also one that has left a sour taste in the mouths of fans (i.e. customers). Not good. So yes, there has to be room to allow the providers to provide the product. But also, the powers that be need to realize that the product they offer has to be appealing to the customers. If they ignore the latter, they get the situation they are in now. Dwindling numbers of customers. It doesn't matter what business you're in, that is a recipe for extinction. -F
Villeneuve Jr was wrong, Villeneuve Sr was right. The fans were right, the FIA/teams were wrong. Lack of overtaking was an issue. The fans didn't suggest DRS - what they wanted was more of 1979 Dijon, Villeneuve vs Arnoux. DRS was a flawed solution to the aerodynamics problem which prevented a following car from getting close enough to overtake, even if they were faster in clean air. The techies still need to come up with regulations that reduce the negative aero impact of one car ahead of another... that's why I think the 2017 rules will be counterproductive. Making the tires wider, wider track, is great- increasing downforce from wider wings is bad.
I think they should have all engines made by 3d printing technology so that when they blow up we all applaud but it doesn't cost much to replace them.
NASCARize F1: do away with Bernie's elitists only access model and bring F1 back to the fans like any other motor sport does
Move away from a spec series. Make the cars faster, but reduce aero reliance. Bring back noise. Get fans closer to the action. Make the economics less challenging for teams and tracks. Leverage social media properly. Bring the sport into the 21st century. Simple really…!
Simpler aeros is the key. Go back to simple wings and less downforce. Too much aero is killing f1. Power unit advancement I'm all for as it might have road car relevance but aeros that function over 125 mph doesn't. Make the drivers relevant again.
Past few months I've written plenty on this but in short: 1) Smaller front wings, single element 2) Lower, wider rear wing with 1 element, no DRS 3) Venturi tunnels, amount of downforce easily ''tuned'' if it's too much. Venturi tunnels pick up the air extremely low so chance of no downforce because of turbulent air is much smaller, yet downforce created is massive so no loss of speed 4) Since we're sticking with 1 tire manufacturer, have 1 tire compound for qualifying, create a tire that lasts easily the entire race (which means it's harder, provides less grip) 5) F1 is too expensive for big manufacturers, let alone small teams. Make it cheaper by simplifying the engines, and far less complicated. Engine manufacturers a la Cosworth, Judd, Zytec etc should be able to manufacture, develop and sell engines yet able to run a profit (if they attempt it now, it'll bankrupt them in months) 6) Focus should be more on driver, too. Gearboxes should be manual, it's become too easy. 7) Differentials should be mechanical, no attempt should be made at creating a different sort of traction control using electric motors either or fancy differentials. It's pathetic 8) Get rid of carbon/carbon brakes. They're reached their development ceiling a long time ago, are not and will never become relevant to anything other than racing cars. They cost an extraordinary amount of money, yet all they do is make racing less exciting by minimizing the braking zone so much that overtaking is nigh on impossible. Some more on engines or power units if you will. They are stupidly expensive yet do nothing for road relevance, which was what Mercedes/Renault claimed why it was necessary to have them in the first place. All other manufacturers are just as good with their hybrid vehicles so their argument of being road relevant is ****. Yes noise I'll bring up again, it's important. Call me a old or that I need to get with the times, whatever. The cars sound ****, it's not even the level of noise but it's the tone, you don't ''feel'' the cars in your chess (****ing MotoGP does that even!). Yes, NA V10 or 12 holds my preference but I'd be happy with 4 liter V8 with 2 turbo's strapped either side of them if that's what it takes. 1500hp would be ****ing easy with a setup like that and not even that hard to accomplish. It'll be the cheapest option. That said, a 4 liter V12 with direct injection will sound absolutely insane, easily provide over 1000hp and with a KERS setup 12-1300 also attainable. In the V10 development times these 3 liter V10's cost around 180-250K per unit. Over proper streaming via an app and their website. Pay for it. Select commentary team (or none), select cameras, live timing etc etc. Last but not least, prize money system needs looking at too, small teams need to not cripple themselves to operate. Lose a sponsor and they're gone these days. My opinion, this would fix F1 It'll draw in more viewers. It will draw in sponsors. It will draw in teams, both small teams and very possibly still even manufacturers. With less money being spend, why not?
I would have to agree.....he(BAS) has gone in greater detail in other posts but that pretty much sums it up.
Max the hypocrite - the least he could/should do is admit that he was wrong and was personally, directly responsible for screwing up F1 for over a decade. From that article, In fact, he did the exact opposite with his regulations for the 1998 year, where the narrow track and grooved tires greatly reduced mechanical grip and shifted the balance of aero vs mechanical grip significantly towards aero. Bas' points are all good. I'd go even further on the front and rear wing simplification and make them spec wings - can you imagine how much wind tunnel time would be saved from every team if they were given plain, simple, standard front and rear wings that gave less aero downforce but still provided their all-important billboard advertising surfaces?
Aero, brakes, and PU cost. Aero- eliminate every element except a single plane front wing and a single plane rear wing, both non-movable. No other protrusions from the body of the car. No bargeboards, winglets, straighteners, vanes or conditioners. Use the contours of the body to reduce drag and increase downforce. Brakes - ditch carbon. Carbon brakes make braking zones so short as to make it impossible/dangerous to pass in what has always been prime overtaking areas. PU cost - Set a maximum cost at $250K per unit and reduce the restrictions on design. Any company making PUs must make units available to others and those units must be identical to those used by any other car on the grid, at the time they are delivered. And upgrades must be made available to all. The current situation effectively makes every "customer" team a second tier team. PUs could be placed in a pool, controlled by the FIA, and released (randomly) to the teams as they are needed.
Brakes - agreed with ditching carbon brakes - hugely expensive, zero road car relevance. Allow carbon ceramic brakes as used on high end sports cars, lets us then go with larger diameter rotors to accompany larger diameter wheels. 13" wheels are so 1960s, the only reason that size is still required was to attempt to restrict brake performance from larger steel rotors. Carbon rotors got around the performance restrictions, but were still stuck with 13" wheels and tires. The tire companies want to go way up to 18" or 19" wheels with low profile tires.
I think the point that is missing about Fixing F-1 is that you cant really go backwards. the only way is to keep pushing the envelope. I have said - and will keep saying you have to open up the rule book - and allow for innovative design. there are too many things banned - Active aero, active suspension, auto gearboxes, ground effect, multiple wheels, weight and height limits and propulsion units are limited... if you set up the rules that say the car has to be powered under its own capacity, one driver on board has to drive ( define drive - as mange and guide all car systems that allow it to lap a circuit) ... and the car can not exceed 6.4G's of lateral or horizontal loading, and it must pass a mandatory head on safety crash test... and have an open cockpit .... and round wheels... the rest is totally open. I think then you give teams the ability to create, attract sponsorship from new technologies, drive competing fuel sources etc... the races have to be longer - 2 hours min no more than 2hr 30 min. allow refueling and tire stops. F-1 then becomes the place for new technology, and that is spectacular to watch. you'll have more car failures - less repetition and less certainty in what will happen. perhaps companies like Tesla would come in - or teams can be formed around fuel cell technology... etc... that is what the future brings. that is what F-1 needs to adopt.
We really have traveled a long twisting road since the formula was: Max length, Max width, Max weight, Max displacement. I'm not certain that things are better now. And I'll still take Moss in the dry and Ickx in the rain.
+1000 A racing fan since the 1960s - modern F1 holds little appeal now and the halo will be the final nail in the coffin for me.
If you read Autosport - This is online for those with paid access. Interesting headline. --Does Liberty really understand its F1 challenge? Formula 1's new owners are getting their feet under the table, but with every day that passes the picture will become clearer of how much of a mess they have taken over--
