I Have To Say It

Stopped watching live so l could use Live Timing years ago. Enjoyment has really gone down for me since the cars sound so terrible. Four engine manufacturers...Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and Honda want to showcase their turbo technology. The sound is killing the sport.

So l record the races and fastforward through the commercials* and boring parts including safety cars and segments where there is no passing.

*Why do they need so many commercials? The cars are rolling billboards, just about every space on or near the track has advertising. More people watch soccer aka European football and theyhave no commercials during the game.

I fall asleep during most races anyway. Should change the name to Formula None or Formula Done.

 

If the technology is not transferable the investment makes no sense. You want an F1 without McLaren, ferrari, mercedes etc? Instead having Williams, force India, manor and some other privateers? Not me, I stop watching when the technology is no longer cutting edge and backed by real car manufacturers. Then you have indycar,no thanks.

 

+1

 

So, you get it. Removing the front wings would make teams and the FIA come up with more mechanical grip at the front wheels. More rubber would be a good start. But limiting front body work to being no widest than the inside of the front wheels or even making wings single-element would be a help. As it is now, because front grip is aero generated, a following car looses its grip because the leading car takes the air off the front wing. Replace aero grip with mechanical grip and that problem goes away and following close and passing are far more likely.

 

The front wings are so large - because they are displacing air and making it difficult to generate rear grip. The large front wings, are to slow the car's down, reducing rear down force. Same for lowering the noses, teams originally responded to the large rear wings, by focusing them outside where the tires are, then raising the nose to allow air flow under the car, to be used for downforce.

Extending the plane of the underside of the car from rear wheels, to front wheels, would be a major help.

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather not see front wings - they will NEVER be legal with pedestrian impact regulation. There is nothing practical to learn from them, and they make the cars ugly.

 

Love that quote! And you're absolutely right. The season now is usually decided in the first five races. What does that really provide?

 

+1

 

+1

In F1, technology is only channeled in the direction the FIA has chosen for political correctness (hybrid power), but not in some other areas

 

McLaren and Williams have mostly been customer teams; they have never produced their own engine. Ferrai has never been at the edge of technology, and isn't a big car manufacturer compared to Renault, Honda, Mercedes, Toyota, BMW who had literally $billions to throw at F1.

Teams like Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Sauber, Force India, Manor and private teams are the ones who last the distance or try to survive in F1.

Big car manufacturers come and go at will (how many times Honda and Renault have left F1?) depending on their commercial interest, and cannot be relied upon to keep the sport alive. With the so-called advanced technology they are insisting on, they are killing F1 with their inflated budgets.

Personally, I am not a fan of high technology, because it costs a lot of money and you cannot see it. At the moment, teams are spending huge amount of money to engineer cars that go slower than 10 years ago! What's the point of that?
The racing is less interesting, and the cars sound like wet farts!

An unrestricted 3 liter or 3.5 atmo engine could deliver 1000hp without problem, and at a fraction of the cost of these hybrid contraptions that can't provide proper racing.

 

Roger. I agree...I would favor simpler front wings with limits on width, etc - which also look great as well IMHO.

I just think removing all together wouldn't make sense.

 

The unrestricted 3 liter engines gave us the most processional racing there was! How is that going to provide 'proper' racing?

In case you didn't realize, both ferrari and McLaren make cars, and to say ferrari had never been at the edge of technology is laughable.

I think your post may be the definition of rose colored glasses - wanting to go back to the 3 liter NA engines for 'proper racing' when they provided processions, not races. In those days they finished in qualifying order unless somebody made a mistake or blew up.

That and na motors are going the way of the dinosaur, who is going to make these motors? The only way it works is if it's a spec as nobody is going to invest in a development race with irrelevant technology. Spec would be the death of f1.

 

Of course, the irony is that Ken Tyrell never did have a bottomless pit of money. He operated from the family wood yard in rural Surrey but managed to attract Derek Gardner, Stewart. Cevert, Depailler, Schekter etc

I saw the P34 at the factory a day or 2 before it was released - it was sitting on tressels in a small shed, without a security man in sight. The small team were very proud of their innovation and IIRC it only died when they could not obtain competitive tyres.

 

I don't think hp is the issue. My husband could drop 8k in mods on his GT-R and get up to 1000hp, and for significantly less cost than an F1 car. Unfortunately, with his exhaust upgrade, his car also sounds better.

 

+1

700, 800, 1000, 1200, who really cares?

As long as they remain the quickest way round a road course I'm somewhat satisfied. Sure, they sound like crap right now, and there's certainly valid arguments that they're too 'aero sensitive', but it is what it is.

Don't like one team dominating? Do a better job & catch up! Easy, right!? No one ever said F1 was easy........

Cheers,
Ian

 

Agree-however Current rules don't allow for catching up, and guarantees that a team like MB can rest on their laurels-therein lies the problem imho. Hardly befitting of F1....

 

Then how did ferrari catch up? That's bs that the rules don't allow catching up,unless you think ferrari broke the rules?

 

Well, tell me what technical breakthrough in F1 we owe to Ferrari.

Independent suspension? No
Disk brakes ? No
Alloy wheels? No
Fuel injection? No
Centre-rear engine? No
Monocoque chassis? No
Composite chassis? No
Carbon fiber? No
Rear wings? No
Ground effect? No

There is just one thing that was found first on a F1 Ferrari, and that was designed by a Brit: the paddleshift gearbox.

Maybe you see Ferrari through rose-tinted glasses?

 

I watched F1 through the unrestricted 3Liter period, and racing was a lot more lively than now.
And no, sorry to contradict you, F1 wasn't processional then, when there several potential WDC until the last GP.
The Stewart, Andretti, Hunt, Lauda, Prost era wasn't a procession; far from it!

At present, with YOUR technology, the result of a GP is predictable at the end of qualifs; if the man on pole (always a Mercedes) doesn't mess up at the start, he has the race in the bag.

Teams spend $ millions for that farce, with cars up to 4 secondes slower per lap than 10 years ago !!!

 

But they are not, are they?

On some track, the pole position in 2015 would have given a mid-field position 10 years ago !!!

 

Not with 2005 spec tires.

 

Just an example:


2004 Italian GP, Monza; Pole position Rubens Barichello - Ferrari - 1.20.089

2015 Italian GP, Monza; Pole position Lewis Hamilton - Mercedes - 1.23.383


Enough said !

 

Ferrari caught up? Hard to see that from Brazil.

 

So what? One major innovation in f1 isn't enough for you? It's not like those other innovations were from one team, they all contribute. You can't say they aren't at the fore front and then list a major innovation they made, that's ridiculous.

Ferrari has arguably the fastest route from race car to road car of any manufacturer in the world where their road cars sport f1 technology long before other car manufacturers do - which is part of the reason the f1 investment makes sense.