Probably that will happen in a far future, but I won't be alive then. You still can ride a bycicle or a horse on public roads.
Absolutely! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTogqrxec7U Do you have any idea how fast you were going Sir?
Just. Out of urban areas, they tend to have their own paths here. I wouldn't fancy the chances of a cyclist or a horse rider sharing space with motor vehicles running at close to 90mph !!! BTW, there is at least 1 cyclist killed every month in the streets of London. Mixing cycles and motor vehicles isn't a good idea.
How many people gets killed in cars or motorbikes every month in London? Probably more than one. Let's remember that we're still quite far from having a commercial full automated car and human driven cars will coexist with autonomous vehicles for a long long time. And even then, I suppose that an exemption for vintage vehicles will exist. 100 years old cars are still allowed on public roads, despite not being compliant to any modern standards. That will be enough for me,I'm not so young to worry about what will happen with cars after that.
Indy cars is a spec series (basically). That's its problem. That and most of its races are on ovals where all you see is cars going around and around and around and around... Wake me when the white flag comes out, ok? Apples and oranges. Here's a clue: Where will F1 go from here? Answer: Where the money is.
Don't count on it!! Of course legislation varies from country to country, and even from some urban areas compared to the countryside. There are already proposals to ban older vehicles from some cities in Europe, based on their emission level. This is intended to spread across the whole of the countryside within years if the laws are passed. Paris already ban motorcycles made prior to 2000. By 2020, no combustion engine vehicles made after 2005 should be allowed in town, etc... If the pilot scheme works in Paris, already 8 major cities across Europe intend to follow. The Netherlands are examining a law banning the sale of combustion engine vehicles from 2025. Vintage and veteran car clubs in Europe have petitioned their legislators as you can imagine. Yes, some older vehicles could be allowed access to certain areas for display, parade, rallies, exhibitions, but NOT for regular use.
Motor racing, almost from the beginning has been on ovals in the States, from boarded tracks to the Brickyard, tarmacked tracks to Daytona. Oval racing sustained big series like Sprint cars, Midgets, the Triple Crown, USAAC, CART, the IRL, NASCAR for 100 years of racing,- bar WWII. So I cannot see the ovals being the reasons for the disaffection of the public. This type of racing was devised to satisfy the American public who likes to see plenty of action from close, get near the drivers and follow races easy to understand. Well, everything F1 isn't!!
Today the Indy car race got rained out. That never happens in F1. Indy car suffers from this affliction to compete with Nascar on ovals. Nascar people will excuse a cancelled race. Indy car people just won't show up.
So, do you think Indy car should abandon oval racing to NASCAR, and concentrate on road courses? But what about Indianapolis itself?
I am an old soul, and prefer to have the driver drive the car without computer aids. Nowdays, there are too many computer doodads in a race car. If one system goes belly up, you're done.
I do think Indy is unique and should always be in their schedule. But there are too many ovals on the calendar. I feel the same way about Monaco with F1. Yes, it's silly but it's unique and interesting and that's enough for good racing.
Dominance of Mercedes nowadays, Red Bull few years back, or Ferrari in the old days can't be the major cause of F1 viewing decline, since it seems to me that dominance of a team has often existed throughout the F1 history. I stopped viewing F1 in the mid 90's after I moved from Italy to USA. Then I started watching it again about 5 years ago, after 20 years. What struck me as a difference between now and the "old days" was the lack of serious accidents, I dare say even deaths, as well as lack of engine breakage. And yes, I get annoyed about Red Bull or Mercedes dominance; but for me - I don't get much excited because at the end I know no pilot is at great risk of getting hurt vs. the old days (I remember few heroes dying on live television), and I don't expect engine fires to be a wild card to allow surprises. This sport got too safe and reliable for its own good. There's no solution to this paradox. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would like to establish the truth about a few supposed statements first: 1) do the car manufacturers really demand that the F1 engines must be "like modern cars" or however they justify the prius drive? Do they actually? 2) is the strict limit on testing actually benefitting the teams with less money? They are probably computered and simulated out by the bigger rivals. Maybe more live testing would allow them to make a better car cheaper?
Mercedes (and Renault was on board) insisted that the current formula should happen (though at first with ''road relevant'' Inline 4s, but cilinder configuration didn't matter in the grand scheme of things) or ''they would leave''. They knew that Ferrari would spend far too much time *****ing about what sort of engines F1 should have whilst they perfected the technology. Their engine was finished a year before anyone.
There is that aspect to consider. There doesn't seem to be any risk anymore. Stirling Moss commented on that recently, saying that modern F1 would probably not appealed to him when he was young. Driving mistakes are of no consequences; the drivers are bulletproof. An excursion off track isn't a big deal anymore, like it was in the past. The cars are designed to jump kerbs (designed for that!!), when before suspension breakage was often the result of lack of precision. The functions on the cars are computer-managed, so the bugbears of the past - overheating, oil pressure drop, over-revs, slipping clutch, fuel starvation - are avoided by sensors and monitors taking action before mechanical breakage. The driver doesn't even have to check its dials; it's all done for him. F1 isn't raw anymore; it has been sanitised. Probably at the demand of the announcers and TV channels.
So have road cars. In the process they have become incredibly boring. No wonder the younger generation are not interested. Bug FAIL by manufacturers IMO. Pete
How to make F1 more exciting? Throw away the current rules and stupid green ideas and rewrite it again. Fans will flock the races and tv.
Applying those "green ideas" on F1 was/is indeed very stupid... and where is the noise of the engines? IMO a (complete) lack of character of the modern circuits is also a main contributing factor to F1's decline.
You are not wrong there. It seems to me that the powers are afraid of speed and want to keep lap time down. So, no long straights anymore, and plenty of chicanes. The way they have butchered Monza, Silverstone and Hockenheim is just an example. New modern circuits look like over-grown go-kart track.
"No risk and circuits with a loss of character?" You are spot-on! Take this to its ridiculous conclusion and you have, what? SENSORS IN THE TRACK to declare when the track limits have been violated!!!! Really? How about a frigging gravel pit to determine that. You go in the gravel & get stuck ... race over! Think that will let drivers know when they have exceeded the track limits? The powers that run F-1 (and/or the FIA) are so idiotic it's amazing they can breathe when they are asleep.
Good racing comes from way more HP than the cars need, no aero, no driver aids, it could be a one make engine (or almost), one tire, series......oh wait! This would be good ol sprint cars, on a 1 mile dirt track or even the 1/4 mile bullrings that provide edge of seat entertainment start to finish almost nightly across US. Growing fan bases and payouts up to $50K to win show their popularity and some drivers get picked to move up to Indycar and Nascar series.
