17 Race Promoters threaten to switch from F1 to IndyCar

Threatening by switching to IndyCar? In Europe? This was the best threat they could think of?!

 

+1

May as well threaten to go & play tiddlywinks.... Would generate about the same level of interest as Danica & Dario.

Monaco - running Indycars?...... In the words of John McEnroe, "you cannot be serious!"

May as well threaten to bring the taxicabs to Europe. [That went well last time they tried IIRC. ]

Seems to me the *only* group more disorganized than FOTA are the "promoters" - Clueless, selfish clowns would be an understatement.

Cheers,
Ian

 

The threats are probably BS indeed, but I'm totally against that proposed change... and I'm environmentally conscious. Why? Less power would be a deal-breaker for almost every fan. And power level is what dictates fuel usage since race cars run all-out most of the time. Therefore, carbon footprint would be pretty much the same regardless of engine size, cylinder configuration, and induction method. Switching to an equally powerful smaller turbo engine would only make the APPEARANCE of being environmentally friendly. And my question is who the hell is calling for F1 races to be environmentally friendly? I could bet my house not the fans, who ultimately make F1 exist.

I'd never pay to watch a race if the proposed changes go through, but that's just me. Would still watch F1 on TV unless it stopped being interesting though.

We're being forced to be environmentally/energy/etc. conscious with car choices, flourescent light bubs, higher energy prices, etc. And I'm fine with all of that to leave a better world to our kids, but leave racing, night football games, etc. alone. Their impact on the environment is minimal.

 

All I can say is - bring back V-12s!!

 

The focal point to the circuit promoters' threat is the likelihood of decrease of revenue. Attendance will drop as the "sound" from the proposed engine with reduced RPM will no longer be enticing to live race fans. There is no argument that the big draw for attending a live race is the sound which the F1 cars make. By proposing to limit the rev to 12,000 RPM, the engine sound will be altered and, thus, reduce the appeal for live spectators. Because Circuit promoters' revenue comes from ticket sales (no revenue from broadcast and/or hospitality such as Paddock Club, etc), it is not difficult to understand their stance. Now, if Bernie would allow circuit promoters a piece of the broadcast and hospitality pie, I am sure that would change circuit promoters' position somewhat.

 

Agreed, sound IS part of the equation.

 

As long as the competition is close and they're faster than anything else around the track, F1 will remain intact. Unless Indycar agreed to Can Am statutes (anything goes), this one is silly. I am impressed Indycar was mentioned though.

 

I don't recall anyone complaining in the 80's about the sound of the Ferrari 126C2 twin turbo engine. A 1.5 liter 6 that spun to 11,000 RPM or so. The Renault and BMW turbo motors were about the same from a sound standpoint.

I certainly don't recall anyone complaining (and how could they) about the sound of the 3.5 liter Ferrari and Lamborghini 12's in the early 90's. I believe they spun to about 12,000 RPM. Maybe a little more.

Hell, a box stock Ferrari 599 GTO or a Lambo LP670 SV will make your neck hair stand up and they both rev to 8,000 or so.

The noise argument is silly. I'd rather watch hamster powered F1 cars than anything the Indy series has to offer.

 

+1

We're witnessing some of the best ever - 4 different mfgr's in top 4, separated by <1 sec is pretty good.....
IMNSHO.

+1

Cheers,
Ian

 

+1

 

The threat itself is silly.
The fact that they are making it is an indication of some very serious concerns.

We're looking at a major turning point in F1 and all involved are staking out their claims.

 

I never cared for the sounds of the '80s turbo engines: too muffled. I don't think that the engines in 1975 when I started going to Grands Prix were turning more than 11,000, and they sounded great. And what about the 512s and 917s in "Le Mans"? Probably limited to less than 10,000 and they sounded great as well.

I think that modern F1 engines rev too high, making them unpleasant to listen to and making earplugs mandatory, which was NOT the case in the "good old days". I say allow any normally-aspirated engine configuration up to 12 cylinders, limit the revs to 12,000, and the fans will be happy (this one will, at least).

 

This may be the perspective from broadcast viewers as the change of sound from TVs will not be too noticeable or impactful. But, to live race attendees, the change of sound from 18,000 rpm to 12,000 rpm will be dramatically different. This will lessen the appeal for folks live at the race and affect the attendance level. Again, we are talking about Circuit Promoters' position relative to the potential drop in revenue. They are protecting their financial interests......

 

I assume you've heard (live) the 3.0 V10 @19,000 rpm of several years ago and the current 2.4 V8 @18,000 rpm but may have forgotten how they compare to those listed in your post. I can assure you that hearing, in person, the modern F1 engine screaming @ 18,000 is an experience not easily duplicated by say a 599GTO at full song.....

 

Not at all silly. It's a financial argument.....

 

The part about running Indy cars isn't a credible threat. Their concerns are real though.

 

i love indy car, i would welcome the change.

 

Back in the late 50's the F1 guys hosted the Indy cars at the Monza races. That trophy is in Indiana today not Italy.
Getting 17 independent minded individuals to agree is an accomplishment in itself...
CH

 

I'd be more impressed if they were protesting something more important...you know, like the fee to hold the GP. The cost to host the GP is what really should be on their minds; who gives a dam what engine the cars are running if no one can afford to host the race regardless of how many spectators show up.

Mark

 

Well you'd be able to find hotels closer, and sit wherever you want. Maybe they'll send some Iowa corn to grille at the Tip Top Bar.

FWIW. We turned 10,600 during the races with DFVs, the limiter was set at 11,000 IIRC. Certainly some like Tyrrell may have been in the low 11s.

Oh, and if your head didn't hurt bad when Nelson Piquet went by with the BMW 4 banger on quali boost, then you must have been back at the hotel. That thing was like a top fuel dragster.

I think the F1 crowd are generally split between teams and driver. I also think they have no clue who 90% of the IRL drivers or teams are.

 

I remember going to F-1 races during the transition years from 1.5 Turbo to NA.
My first race was in 1986 when all the cars were turbo. I thought they sounded great, but then again I had no reference.
The Following year, there were a few V-8 mixed with the Turbos. And let me tell you that the V-8's sounded WAY better than the Turbos.
By 1989 they were all running NA. Some 8, some 12. I was blown away again; the V-12's sound much better that the V-8.

 

ROFL

BTW: nobody in the US watches IRL either, it is a non starter


I never understand the concerns about the sound: ever heard a 1 liter high revving motor cycle?

Of course the new F1 engines will scream. Different sound but still bone shattering. 10k RPM guarantee that

 

1) Someone saw 'Borg vs. McEnroe' on HBO, didn't they?
2) How can you possibly beat on a promoter, knowing how badly Bernie is raping them?

Again I ask you how on earth did F1 survive before these overgrown motorcycle engines became the norm?
You think the SOUND ALONE is what brings people to the races? Hardly. It might be a small factor, but I don't know anyone that goes to an F1 race because of the sound, or that it REALLY factors in.

YOU, Brian, DO have a clue! I agree with you! Nobody can ever understand the 82-83-84 (BMW) turbo years unless you were THERE.