LdM; "Bernie is too old!"......

Thanks, I think!...... It's true, I still love F1 and everything about it.

In fairness, it's been that way for what, 30 years now - You come up with a better solution and everyone else follows.

Indeed. "Cost control" old chap! Any other model is financially unsustainable IMO. And of course that changes in 2014.

Requested by the "fans".

I'll concede that one!..... It certainly is immeasurably safer than it was. I do agree however that an off track excursion should cost more than it does in most places at present.

See my comments above.

I hear you, but not strictly true IMO. Just that the rules are very tight these days - Provides us with the closest grids we've ever seen.

And engine penalties. So what? Does it spoil the racing? I've said before, what they're now achieving in reliability terms is stunning.

+1 I've been spouting forever they should be allowed to test on Mondays after the races. What they don't want is a return to the 2-3 dedicated test team days. I can understand that.

It'll come.

Doesn't bother me.

I raised this "issue" in the USGP photo thread - They haven't been "beautiful" in decades IMO.

Not true.

Close racing is bad?......

The way they are today, with tiny ride heights there's nothing else they could do in those situations except delay the whole thing - Which may be good, but will piss off the almighty TV companies.

Not true. we had a record # of overtakes in Brazil.

Again, cost control.

I hear you, I really do, but without the rose tinteds it's hard to make an argument that the racing was "better" back in the day. Dayum, we had many years when 107 was scrapped in order to ensure full grids.....

Cheers,
The Faustian Fast Ian

 

Ian has the advantage of actually having been there in the good old days that we yearn for that much...

 

Pretty much like any business in a competitive world.

Rightly or wrongly, that's exactly where we're at today - He doesn't care if ticket one is sold or for how much. He, again rightly or wrongly, depends upon sanctioning fees (which it still seems many are willing to pay) and TV contracts.

Doesn't show any signs of failing thus far.....

There's pretty much always been pay drivers in F1. FWIW, Rolex has just signed up as the "official timing supplier." Sponsors (and manufacturers!) come and go, yet he continues to grow revenue. I bet there's not another motor sport series that wouldn't like to be in his shoes.

+1 I'm certainly not trying to claim it's perfect, but it remains the most compelling form of the sport there is. To me at least.

Cheers,
Ian

 

The thing is this, we will never know what F1 would have been like without Bernie running the show, the thing we do know is, he has made a lot of money for himself and those in F1, and probably many more besides.

So the fact is we still have F1 races, I have serious doubt's if not for the likes of Bernie we would not have F1.

Folk will always moan and whine to whatever is served up to them, harping on about the past is not going to change things, the world is always changing, F1 needs to keep up and show willing to the greens as well, after all it does fly in face of world cost cutting in general.

F1 is a play ground for the super rich and we watch it, if you don't like it, don't watch it's that's simple.

 

I´m not going to say that all things Bernie did are bad, but:

1. He did not start from zero. Formula 1 always has been a great product. He just found ways to sell it better (note to self: it seems that in these days it´s more important to sell things than to create things, see Steve Jobs for reference).

2. So Formula 1 one now has more money...
2a. Does it really matter to us, spectators?
2b. The income and costs were already rising before Bernie came thanks to big sponsorship (does Colin Chapman really deserve the credit for the big money?).
2c. So Formula 1 has more money now than 30 years before. Yeah, just like football/soccer and almost all elite sports. Does Bernie really deserve so much credit? Maybe without him things would be almost the same, maybe with a little less money, but with much less BS.

 

Before it's banned you mean? No the cars used to look much more different...and 30 years ago we had V12s, V8s, V6s and turbo 4s all running on the same track. All those different engine configurations alone would lead to different looking cars. You really think the packaging for a V12 looks the same as a turbo 4? This was 1000x more interesting than every car running the same engine that can't even be developed.

The cost control argument makes little sense. F1 went on with engine development for 46 years. I'd like to hear your argument how engine development is unsustainable. What proof do you have of that? It changes in 2014 you say...what until they find some speed in this weak new formula and they go spec again?

They wanted more passing (could be done with more power, less aero) yet the FIA cooked up this farcical crap. The fans asked for more passing, not DRS.

There you go again. Nascar and Indy Car grids are close too. These "tight rules" coupled with frozen engines and no testing = practically spec cars and it sucks.

Hell yeah it spoils the racing. Do you want to see drivers handicapped because they had to change an engine? I want short, balls-out sprints, where the slower cars get left in the dust. You seem to prefer longer economy runs where everyone runs close. You should look into following NASCAR, I'm not kidding, you'd love it. Small blocks holding 9500 RPM for 2+ hours in tight packs - great reliability!

Does bother me and I'm sure it bothers other people that have shelled out absurd amounts of $$$$ to see a race in person only to be treated like ****.

Completely disagree. Alesi's 412T, Kimi's MP4-20, or Alonso's R26 make today's cars look like silly toys. HUGE out of proportion front wings, skinny little tires, and skinny little rear wings? Let's get real. Cars today look like crap compared with even 2008 machines.

Uhhhh, yeah it is. Sorry. The cars are absolutely getting slower. You're in denial.

If it's artificially induced with overburdened regulations, stifled innovation, and frozen technology, yes it is. Plus, just last year we had a blowout in the championship. The FIA banned a few things, screwed up the tires and VOILA! They're close again. How cool!

You act like racing when 2 teams dominated sucked...actually the MS/Hakkinen battles (for example) were awesome. We don't need 10 cars on the grid to be capable of winning a race.

You're kidding right? A drive like Donington 93 or Barcelona 96 would never happen today. They would have been gimping around behind the safety car for 25 laps. It's a joke.

You missed my point. The Hulk penalty was a bunch of crap and we have WAY too much of that going on anymore.

Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.



We clearly have different opinions and F1 is not immune to criticism. I tend to see you dismissing most people that do as having "rose tinted" views of the past. You're a glass half full guy (and maybe in a bit of denial about some things), and that's fine, but lots of things have gone downhill.

 

Congratulations. So was Bernie.

NEXT!

 

Is there any reason for your aggressiveness?

 

Is there any reason for your bringing absolutely nothing to the discussion but smartass little quips?

 

Florian asked an honest question and by no means insulted you, or deserved such a response. An apology is in order. I can honestly say his technical knowledge and absolute polite demeanor here do not deserve your insult.

 

Hey everyone, stop picking on Ian.

He's really a nice guy.

If wrong.


Like the missionaries who preached to the natives on Sunday and sold them booze the other six days, Bernie came to do good and did very well indeed.

He's made a lot of people a lot of money but the plan relies on continued growth into new markets and I do not see that as sustainable. Sooner or later the music will stop.

 

That's what I don't get. How the hell does he sell these races on any other premise than "it'll put your country on the world stage!" Because anyone can look up race after race after race that has come and gone (and even established ones like Melbourne are broke) and see they're not going to make money with his model.

As for Ian, I think he has some great views and I like to hear his perspective on lots of F1 issues but we just fundamentally disagree on this.

Obviously I still love F1, I just haven't been happy with many changes or decisions they've made lately. I'll still be tuning on come March though and that's all Bernie cares about.

 

Well said. I remember watching F1 before Bernie and it was fine.

And Kraftwerk there would definitely be something like F1 if Bernie had never existed. Men (in particular) will always want to prove who is faster (except in bed) ... it is primitive contest stuff.
Pete
ps: And FastIan, the lack of racing in the rain nowadays is embarrassing. It has nothing to do with suspension travel or ride height, it has all to do with F1 going soft. Likely real reason is cost saving (think of all the potentially damaged cars), but they should race!

 

Currently, it's roughly 30% each from the TV co's, hosting fees & "other".

It's a *long* way from "broke" IMO. Again; please gimme another motorsport series thats doing better?.......

Sure, we've seen better times, but it's still the only series I really care about.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Me too. And it was indeed "fine".

We had 2, 3, maybe 4 cars finishing on the lead lap. We had guys dying. We lost an entire medical truck. We had no medical car, let alone helicopters.

It was fine. Sucks now though......

They still go in the rain...

I'm sorry, but it does. Back in the day with 3-6" under the sucker you could do it. Nowadays, the pointy end of the plank is, what, ~1" off the deck (?) If they even see water, they're aquaplaning..... Whether this is good or bad is another debate of course

OK.

I can't help thinking there's as many broken cars this year as any other though.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Bernie did not solve this. Stewart had more influence than Bernie here.

Oh and a race is not determined interesting or good based on the number of cars on the lead lap. All you need is 2 having a great big battle and who gives a toss about any other car in the race. Remember Lauda/Senna versus Prost for example (a Bernie era example proving that only 2 cars matter).

Aquaplaning has nothing to do with ground clearance. It is caused by the tread area of tyre deflecting allowing water to get inbetween the tyre and the road, lifting the tyre off the road: http://www.michelin.co.uk/tyres/learn-share/care-guide/Aquaplaning
Pete

 

My bad. You are of course correct.

Current jockeys do however refer to a similar phenomenon as "aquaplaning".

Not due to their tires floating around, but the plank lifting the whole mess.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Very true. Jackie & The Prof.

However, Bernie picking up the tab was my point.

Cheers,
Ian

 

I'm no expert but I would have thought with all that downforce an F1 car would rarely aquaplane, compared to say a Formula Ford ???

Still down right scary stuff ... and being a New Zealand I've raced a few times in the rain and sure makes you think about what and why you are doing what you are doing when you cannot even see past your bonnet and have to look out the side of the car to work out where you are and thus when you should start thinking about braking ... the other half of your brain is telling you to lift off, but then you realise that the guys behind you cannot see either!
Pete

 

An F1 car and driver weigh only about 300 lbs more than a Formula Ford, but the tire contact patch on an F! car is more than twice that of an FF. The F1 car's downforce is a function of the square of the speed of the car so at low speeds (say under a 100 mph) the F1 will probably hydroplane as easily as the FF.
At top speed in an F1 car the combined weight/downforce is equal to a big sedan, and the tires are much wider. Imagine an Audi A8 on the Autobahn at 180 mph with wider than stock tires hitting standing water...

 

Indeed! Good one!

I hear you. But, we've been in what many consider a huge economic pile of pooh for the past few years and the music is very definitely still playing.

I'm certainly not saying it will last forever, but why not ride it while they can? OK, traditional markets may get squeezed out, same as in any other competitive market.

Me neither! I've said many times I think it's the promoters who are nuts. OTOH, Silverstone at least continues to thrive and I don't think he gives 'em much of a discount. So it is doable.

+1 [And thanks! ]

FWIW, I don't think we "fundamentally disagree"...... We have different ideas as to where it's been, where it's at now and how to improve it, but that's all good.

Look, I too would love a return to "free" engines - Just restrict max fuel flow and do whatever the hell you want. Would be great fun. Until it wasn't when nobody could afford it any more.

DRS is a "farcical piece of crap"? I'd agree 100% *if* they were constantly going back & forth every lap. But, even the haters must admit that hasn't happened. What it has done is given faster cars a chance at overtaking that was impossible before. We used to have pages of whines that "there's never any passing in F1. It's *so* boring!" Blah blah.

As for the Taxicabs & Indy having close grids - Not even remotely compared to F1. Nobody else comes close - Hero to zero in less than a second over a ~100 second lap is something they dream of. In cars which are all designed independently. Again, I know the rules are restrictive, but it remains a *long* way from a spec series.

I guess I don't know why you watch as it obviously makes you completely miserable?

Cheers,
Ian

 

Strip mining the sport.

Things looked rosy to most summer of 29 too.

 

Fair comment. And (yet another ) good analogy.

So, to move it forward he should;

- Give his product away cheaply to "traditional" host nations.
- Not try to grow the sport but accept less revenue and hence less cash for what they call the "stakeholders".
- Allow it to stagnate in it's old markets and not bother about any new potential that's out there.

Doesn't seem like a good business strategy to me.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Have you stopped beating your wife sir?
Yes or no?

F1 may be caught in an unsustainable spiral without viable long term options or those options may be the only ones left but I hope not. A lot of good people can get caught in the switches when operations go belly up.

Ask the HRT crew how their homecoming was.

 

Going to extremes as usual...granted you were referring to the times before Bernie but I've seen you post the same thing in other contexts.

You always seem to conveniently leave out the 80s, 90s (so many cars trying to get on the grid that pre qualifying had to be held - how shocking with big HP motors and engine development occuring! Who would have thought!) and early to mid 2000s.

Cars are slower, cars are almost "spec," mistakes have no consequences, too many races where no one gives a damn, and too much emphasis is put on the "show" with DRS and these tires. Hmm...wonder who is behind that??

F1 got to the point where it was plenty safe after Senna's passing...now it's become sterile. You might like that, I don't.