Horner: F1 should be polar opposite of Formula E

F1 has reached a 'crossroads', says Red Bull's Christian Horner | F1 News

He's absolutely right! Let manufacturers use Formula E as their personal playground for developing electric systems, and F1 go back to being spectacular.

 

Yes. i agree completely. Making F1 "relevant" is bs. F1 should be about achievement, commitment, courage, and above all ultimate speed.....not about being a test lab for "the future of the automobile." Horner didn't go far enough, though. F1 needs to shed itself of ridiculous artificial rules that make "strategy" more important than outright speed. When I hear on a driver's radio that he needs to break off an attack in order to conserve his tires it's a sad state of affairs.

 

+1

And of course attack is limited not only due to tires (which last longer these days)...but driving too fast too long results in 2 problems: 1) the fuel runs out so won't even see the end of the race and 2) puts unnecessary wear on the car components and result in inevitable penalties during the season... Both are absolutely pathetic imo.

-Allow for refueling, so that strategies can come in to play to fix problems that happen early on.
-Better aero so that following close is possible, and we don't have to rely on strategy to pass
-exciting sounding engines, and definitely cheaper ones at that!

Manufacturers come to play at Formula E, "real" teams can continue in F1 without losing money hand over fist, it'll be a sporting spectacle and fantastic to visit as it'll please all senses.

 

I think it would be interesting if the rule that requires at least one tire change was eliminated. Super smooth Alain Prost would almost always play that strategy.

 

Yeah I hate that rule too...

 

+1


Mandatory pit stops introduce strategy (mostly directed from the pits) and hamper racing, IMO.

 

Strategies is not the essence of racing.

Cars should carry enough fuel to go to the ened of the race without stopping.

 

I agree with that.

 

Yes and no. A car gets spun out, or needs to make an unplanned stop very early on, put through use of clever strategy brings himself back into play. I like that.

A backmarker doing a 1 stopper on hard tires vs others doing multiple stops on ultrasoft, and he manages to get serious points...I quite like that.

On the other hand, I agree with you, enough fuel till the end of the race and no tire change necessary is a great way (theoretically) to enforce racing, but the cars are slow for the first half of the race, I personally do not like the long cars (and if going back to atmospheric engines the cars will be even longer due to the need to carry more fuel).

When we have aero that allows high downforce but also allows cars to follow each other (much) closer, strategies will actually be interesting. It won't be like before, when a strategy call was made if the risk to overtake was too great.

IMO the problem with no stop races (or just tire stops like now) is that a slower car actually has no chance at bettering a faster car. The fastest cars (usually) outqualify the slower ones and from there on it's pretty much impossible for the slower car to get by, unless he has a great start.

 

Good thought but ain't gonna happen

 

I don't like strategy.

A slower car should have no chance of bettering a faster one.

The logical order should be respected and no gimmicks introduced to spice up the racing.

If people don't like it, they are watching the wrong sport, IMO.

I have no problem at all watching a race where the faster cars and the faster drivers romp away from the field and battle among themselves, never to be caught up by the backmarkers.

 

The car manufacturers will dictate what goes on in F1, not the FIA, and not the fans.

The only way car manufacturers would stop influencing the rules would be if the FIA made F1 a specs series like Indycar, and that's unlikely to happen.

 

Without strategy, a slower car can stay up front the entire race if the driver got the start right.

You still have to be faster to work strategy. No amount of strategy is going to put Ericson in 1st... It simply allows cars that are very close to find a position that otherwise would be a parade.

 

Horner is right to a certain extent. But the fan perspective is simple. They want to see the fastest meanest race cars on the planet. Which ever formula delivers that is king of the hill. I don't know how many of you have ever watched Formula E, but it is utterly pedestrian and boring, plus the tracks are useless inner city debacles. It doesn't matter how many manufacturers flock to Formula E, it will still be rubbish.

F1 has nothing to fear from Formula E.

 

Guess Lemans 24 isn't racing then

Refuelling absolutely needs to come back.

 

Well, I watched F1 in an era without pit stop of any kind, no tyre changes and no refuelling, and the racing was very good.

Refuelling was introduced when Gordon Murray imagined the stratagem of sending Nelson Piquet on the grid with half tank on his brabham. With a lighter car, he soon took the lead and created a gap large enough to pit and refuel to win without loosing the lead.

The penny dropped for every other teams that there was an advantage in racing with a lighter car rather than one on full tank, at least for half the race. The FIA hesitated, but finally adopted it, allowing constructors to design lighter cars with smaller tanks.

The tyre change was an idea from Bernie, in his quest to add some spice to the race, by introducing several grades of tyres, with a mandatory change.

But it's artificial, and not really what GP is all about, IMO. During the 60s, and most of the 70s, there were no pit stops, and the racing didn't suffer from it.

 

Le Mans is not a GP; it's an endurance race.

I hope you know the difference.

I am of the opinion that refuelling has no place in F1, with races of short duration.

If you like refuelling so much, I suggest Indycar or NASCAR for you!!!

 

They are 2 different series, obviously.

 

What? Why shouldn't a slower car try and get ahead of a faster one? And respect the order? By that logic if any of the Red Bull guys or Force India's have a decent chance, they shouldn't overtake a Ferrari or Mercedes? Or let them pass easier so to not interfere with the faster cars' race?

My friend I think you should watch hill climbing or something, no interference from slower cars or slow cars daring to get ahead of another...

 

You know who wins the race? The car, driver, and team that completes the race distance first. It means the car has to be reliable, the driver has to be smart and yes, there is always a bit of luck. There have always been "gimmicks" involved.

 

If a driver on a slower car can attack and pass a better car on skills alone, then it is well and good.
Moss used to beat factory Ferrari on a year old car entered by a private team. That was due to talent alone, and not helped by pit stops, team assistance or any other gimmicks.

Jack Brabham won races with a Repco engine that gave away 100hp to Ferrari, again on skills alone.

But to "give a chance to the slower cars or drivers" goes against what F1 is all about.

There was a time when drivers didn't receive any assistance whatsoever , and there were no artificial ingredients added to a GP. Why can't we go back to basic and a simpler form of racing?

 

But you are right that I like rallying for the reason that there is no interference from other competitors, nobody to block you, slow you down or drive you off the road. It's man against the clock, and nothing else.

The Mille Miglia, and the Targa Florio or the Panamerican used to be like that too. They were races against the clock.

Actually, the TT motorcycle races at the Isle of Man are held under that formula too, and provide interesting races to watch. Proof that you don't need plenty of dogfights and overtakings to have a good race.

 

I agree 100% and obviously tires can be designed and built that will last an entire grand prix


Pit stops in F1 are pure artifice, advocated by those who insist that they add "excitement" and that F1 racing is a team sport. Which it is, I suppose, in the same sense that tennis and golf are team sports. That is, there is plenty of team involvement until the red lights go out. After that it should be up to one man.

 

Exactly.
There should be no interference from start to finish in GP. The races are between 70 and 90 minutes long only.

You don't see gimmicks introduced in other sports I know, just to spice up the show.

Could you imagine a mandatory change of bikes in cycling? Or a mandatory change of shoes for marathon runners?

 

+ infinity.

Pete