F1 Strategy group meeting

All of this is just putting lipstick on a pig...

For a long time they were selling the "spectacle" of F1.. Then, because there was no passing, they made qualifying more entertaining to watch on TV. But the racing itself is pretty boring, and has been for a long time. Now the general public has grown tired of it and is tuning out.

After a while, the sponsorship money will dry up and it will all implode. It will take years, but face it, this is a dying sport.

 

+1

 

I don't think so. The less rabid fan wants to see something other than a line of cars driving around a track. There's simply no way you're going to have 20 cars let alone 10 or 5 contending for the win each race. That's a whole different issue causing that...no testing...limited modifications...budgets etc. Theorhetically it's highly unlikely Williams for instance can jump to the front when say Ferrari spends tons more in the winter than their entire budget? So to me, a pure car/driver formula would be boring as hell.

I just view F1 as team sport nowadays. It's too sophisticated and technical to be a one man show. I like the team and strategic aspect of the sport nowadays. However, if they want to change all that, just look to MotoGP. Prior to last season you had five years of the most boring racing on the planet. They introduced the secondary bike setup which allowed the satellite teams to compete...for real. F1 is thinking about it..it could work for them too.

 

We have completely opposite opinions here.

F1 is "sophisticated" because gimmicks have been introduced to make a spectacle of that was a genuine sport before. Ecclestone has turned it into show business, and I hate that.

I would prefer F1, to go back to its roots and be again the best test to determine the best driver.

Watching excellence will never bore me, even if the best driver is way ahead of the field or lap everyone else.

I don't care if it's less spectacular, or if the spectators don't like it. If it's too boring for the "fans", maybe they are watching the wrong sport. I suggest NASCAR for them, with its manipulations, etc...

F1 has bowed down to financial interests for too long.

 

True. When it becomes solely about the money sport ceases to be sport.

 

This, x some number too large to comprehend.

 

+1

 

Almost everything that happens in a race is effected by the preparation work long before the cars or drivers appear on the track - this makes no sense.

Given that the vast majority of GP's and F1 have had refueling, the gimmick would be making more rules to take this away.

 

Refuelling means the cars will be lighter and faster so more difficult to drive. Good!

 

preparation counts for a lot, but when the lights go out it's just the drivers and the tarmac that make it a pure race, with whatever kit they've prepped. F1 should still be flat-out every lap. Like the top paid boxers, let's see drivers work up a sweat and crawl out of the cars once again.

 

+1

 

Back in those days - when they had refueling

 

I want the drivers to push so I'm all in with refueling

 

I have been watching F1 for a long time.

P.Hill, Graham Hill, Jim Clark, John Surtees, Jack Brabham, Denny Hulme, Jochen Rindt, Emmerson Fittipaldi, Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda, Jody Schekter, those are the world champions I can remember who won before refuelling started. There may be more, but I cannot recall them all. Maybe Piquet and Jones won without refuelling too.
Do you think there was no worthwhile racing before refuelling was allowed?

Refuelling is a gimmick in a short race, same as mandatory tyre change.
It doesn't add to the show, it spoils it.

 

The processional that we call Formula One got this way because of aerodynamics. Wings and spoilers and diffusers and flip-ups and tabs and winglets and barge boards, f-ducts and s-ducts, stalling the wing and so forth may make a car lap faster because of the increased down force, but they only work where the initial air flow is undisturbed. That is why a preponderance of races are won from the front row, and most often at the first turn. The driver in front has a huge advantage because his aero package can work as designed. How often have we seen a pole sitter with a 0.085 second advantage in quali, finish the first lap with a 1-2 second lead? Even with DRS, a car may ruin its front tires just trying to get into position to deploy DRS and hope to pass because following another car destroys down force.

Let's eliminate every aero device except a single front wing and a small rear wing. Them increase tire size so that lap times will be similar to the current times. Generating grip mechanically also gives the driver a bigger role in how the car performs. The way things get shaken up when it rains, because it gives a good driver the opportunity to exploit his ability and mechanical grip.

Eliminate the wings and fatten the tires!

 

sure - but they didn't have 100kg fuel limits back then.

let's hope the new proposals can put the speed back into F1

 

That won't work.

If you reduce the wings drastically and put larger tyres, you will decrease the grip ito an alarming degree.
Less pound of pressure per square inch will reduce tyre grip.

The only way larger tyres can be fitted is if they receive increased weight which is achieved by more downforce = larger wings.

To reduce the aeros, you must also reduce the tyre width to keep some mechanical grip.

Also, larger tyres give more frontal area and turbulences; on their own, larger tyres reduce top speed.

 

You cannot compare a 24-hour endurance race with a 90 minutes GP !

In endurance, refuelling is necessary; it is not in F1.

As for using plastic churns to refuel cars; strewth, F1 had at least refuelling rigs and don't need to go back to unsafe methods. Maybe next you will suggest for the driver to get out of his car and refuel it himself!

Yes, there is an issue: it's called SAFETY.

What's the point of using all that expensive technology on the car if it's OK to refuel from jerrycans! Unbelieveable !!!

 

If the cars can run the distance in less time with fuel stops than without, where's the gimmick?? If there wasn't a time advantage to carrying less fuel and stopping one or more times during the race, they wouldn't do it.

Anything that allows the drivers to push for a greater number of laps is a positive in my book.


Mark

 

Using plastic cans for refuelling maybe the only solution for a race that has 150 entrants, most of them private teams, and where the pit area wouldn't accommodate rig for all the cars. It's a compromise, in view of the environment, the conditions, the cost, etc... .

But here, you hinted that using plastic cans would be alright in F1, supposed to be the pinacle of motor racing! You even talk about "silly refuelling rigs" !

Need I say more ...

 

True. I don't know why so many get so hung up over it.
Expanding the teams' options can only improve the competition and make the races more interesting.

 

My main objection is that refuelling, or tyre changes, involves the participation of the pit crew in some sort of strategy.
I don't like the idea of teams employing an army of strategists analysing the race and deciding at what point to bring their drivers, or using the stops to gain advantage depending from circumstances (accident, yellow flags, safety cars); to me, this is akin to outside assistance.
I think the driver should be left alone to decide his own race without coaching from the team. I would welcome a radio ban as well. Drivers are receiving too much information and instructions.
Just a pit board once a lap was enough before, and should be still.

Let's do away with mandatory tyre changes, refuelling and ban the radio, and we would go back to a purest form of racing. 180 miles or 90 minutes flat out without interference.
The cars can do it, the tyres should do it and the drivers too.
The rest is just gimmick.