Thinking the unthinkable

Loosen up the rules, A LOT!

There is nearly unlimited money for R&D here and a return to the days where things like the Tyrell six-wheeler were tried would get me back to paying attention.

I think there's already too much attention on drivers. They're just hired help . The real stars are the cars.

 

I'm not upset, we're just having a discussion here

Again, I don't see any need for F1 to go with the times completely and go fully electric for example. That's suicide of the sport. Maybe it'll disappear, who knows.

You say that TV channels haven't disappeared, but it is disappearing. New TV's coming with apps such as Netflix, Amazon prime etc are quickly replacing the need for TV networks (who wants to watch that with their ever increasing adds anyways?).

Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but I'm not buying a hybrid or electric car because I'm forced to (I'll buy something ''old'' instead) or because F1 drives with them. The day when Europe banishes all petrol powered cars from the public roads is the day I pack my bags and **** off to the Caribbean, never to return. I doubt the day will come, btw, the banning of all petrol cars on public roads, but nevertheless. I'll leave in a quick hurry.

As for who will invest in such engines...Ferrari, for one. And I'm damn sure other manufacturers will invest, too, even as just an engine supplier (that's the whole point with my earlier comment, the much lower cost to develop such engines makes this possible again!), it'll also open the door for Engine specialists such as Cosworth. Honda has spend over 250 MILLION on their broken engine, so obviously small time manufacturers such as Cosworth are completely out of the question. However, simple, NA engines, rev limited, is much less costly, by such an amount that they can actually make money on it, making it a worthwhile business move to develop an F1 engine again. After the initial cost of developing these old school engines, building new ones is cheap. Lets say engines have to last 2 races (easily done), so that's 10 per car per season. Sell them at 100K a pop. If Cosworth where to enter today, they'd have to sell their engine at 5 million a pop, and it would take them 5 years just to break even on 1 year of development (and no one will pay 5 million for an engine).

Some big teams may leave the sport with such significant changes (I fully expect Mercedes to leave, but there's a good chance they'll close doors after 2018 as well anyways). Ferrari will stay, why wouldn't they? Mclaren will also stay. Williams, Sauber, Force India (or whatever they'll be called)...all garagistes. They don't sell cars. They race, and some have done for over 40 years, selling some advertising on the side of their car in order to keep going. For them, MORE viewership will be much more beneficial than less viewers but more hybrid nonsense, as their value will go down.

Making the sport cheaper by having simpler engines and aero is only beneficial for the sport and those involved.

 

I'll tell you what: I hope you are right and that I am all wrong in my predictions.

But I can feel forces at work that are a danger to the sport we like in its present (and past) form.

F1 made up of garagists only, supplied by Cosworth and Judd type of engines, and with limited technology would suit me.

I remember my old father's reaction when I explained him that F1 had adopted paddle-shift gearbox: "But that's half the drivers skills gone" he said. "Why have they done that?"

In truth, driving one-hanged whilst changing down gears with heel-and-toe under breaking required a lot of finesse to avoid losing control or over-revving the engine. Not everyone executed that with full dexterity and many broke engines or came off because of bad synchronisation. That's definitely not required now, and gear changes up and down are no drama anymore.

 

Here's the deal:

Formula One would cease to be F-1. plain and simple. It has always been since 1958 the combo of man and machine. You could call it Grand Prix racing or something like that and have them all be Mercedes or Ferrari's or what ever... but its not Formula One.

To me this would be a STUPID idea with no merits other than making the teams more money.

I'd rather have two or three manufacturers - Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault or some combo and allow them to sell customer cars rather than a single make.

further that point - if you only have 2-3 makes... then let them make the wildest cars out there.... money then should not be the issue, and the manufactures are getting paid for the cars and all the development. When F-1 got corporatized ( thanks Ron Dennis) & Bernie ) ... it stopped being about sport and ALL about Money.... that is really what its all about today. teams don't want to spend more money as there is nothing left for them... which is kinda stupid in racing... racing has always chewed up money faster than you can generate it. that is what makes it so compelling.

 

Regarding the gearchanges...The last time I recall someone making a shifting error was Alonso in 2006 or 2007, either for the Renault or Mclaren, coming out of Parabolica in Monza and he double shifted up costing him a tenth or 3.

All that. In 20 years.

 

That, compared to missed gear changes, over-revved engine, broken gearboxes and burnt clutches which used to be quite common in F1 prior to that.
Almost every driver used to buzz an engine at least once a year by over-revving on a down change , and some more than that !!

 

That would go back to the 50s, before the creation of the WCC, when private teams used to race Ferrari, Maserati, etc...
Even in the 60s, Williams, Tyrrell, Rob Walker, Jo Bonnier, de Beaufort, Centro-Sud, Reg Parnell, BRP and more used to buy cars.

The World Constructors Championship could become the World F1 Teams Championship.

I have always maintained that with increasing cost and technology, it's not reasonable to expect in 2016 to have 12 constructors with equal chances on the grid. But 12 teams served by 4 constructors seem more reasonable.

 

- Get rid of the hybrid motors. Let teams run whatever motor they want, but have a formula for na vs fi motors.
- Go back to refueling.
- Team salary caps (engineering, r&d, pit crew...)

 

I don't think it's possible to lower costs with any technical rule change.

So long as winning a championship is worth X dollars of sponsorship money, it will be worth spending up to X' dollars to develop a winning car. Whether X' is spent on a more advanced hybrid drivetrain or on a better soap box derby car, it doesn't matter. Every team will have to do it if they want to win.

If anything, it costs even _more_ money to improve a mature technology than to improve a new one.

 

It amazes me that so many of you think F1 would be better as some sort of historic series with N/A old fashioned engines. Has not helped Indy cars has it.

Facts are the current generation, ie your kids, could not give a stuff about cars. They are just boring transport. Motorsport will go the way of horse racing and die down to very small select circles of interest/fans.

Now is NOT the time to invest in F1/motorsport or even car manufacturing. The fact that manufacturers are all racing to the automonous car shows that it's dead. The complete antithesis of what has been so interesting to humans over the developing years.

On top of that F1 has to be about the quickest possible technology and that is no longer the combustion engine. The current power plants are FASTER and without all the restrictions they would be destroying lap records. A fully electric car will soon be faster still.
Pete

 

They tried it with A1 GP ,which eventually went bust. I hope F1 does not morph into a kind of souped up Formula Ewwwwwwww.

 

+1- F1 tech might be actually assisting all you have posted above about the shift in views of cars and the impact on racing. In a sense the new tech is actually accelerating F1's demise/relevance.

 

True, but the tech is everywhere not just F1.

For some unexplainable (to me) reason people are fascinated by a car driving itself, even though we have buses and taxis. Racing by human drivers is not at all interesting to this current generation. The F1 audience would go up considerable if the race was an autonomous one.
Pete

 

That's true, but restrictive rules allow the smaller teams to get closer to top teams, as the top teams have to spend their higher budget to get smaller gains.

 

F1 has to go with the times or, as noted above, it will go the way of horse racing. That means hybrid technology, and in the future, electric or hydrogen or whatever comes. I've said many times that technology is already too much castrated for my own taste to keep costs down and to create the false illusion of that drivers still matter.

 

Well, I enjoy driving but I wish I had a self-driving car. Let the computers do the dirty job (going to work early in the morning, city, highway) while I enjoy the twisty country roads.

 

They couldn't give a rats arse if F1 became so eco that the cars ran on crushed capitalists skulls and controlled by wind powered computers. They're not interested in cars/racing, so catering the sport to them is pointless. Formula E has lost almost 50% of their audience in a year! What they watch is digital sports on Twitch.

 

Keep F1 the epitome of motor racing by sticking to internal combustion engines. To stay with the times, there is always Formula E.

 

Will never happen. They cannot co-exist.

Once computer controlled cars populate our roads, insurance will be impossible for human drivers. Think about the accident situations, ie. computer car crashes into a human driven car ... it will be the humans fault!
Pete

 

Bas, Why do you confuse technology with eco?

I never, ever, ever, ever said anything about eco. The current power units are better at making performance than NA engines ever were and this has nothing to do with being eco. We are now using what was previously wasted energy to make more power.

If you put these current PU's in say a 1993 Williams F1 car it would lap many seconds, maybe over 5 seconds a lap faster! Again this is NOT about eco, it is about using all the energy available to go faster.

The current generation is more into technology not eco. My step-sons for example are well and truly over the eco crap that has been drummed into them for years.
Pete

 

So you honestly think the internal combustion engine can compete with the electric motor in efficiency?

Once they find a way to solve the energy storage issues the FASTEST car by a long way will be electric. Surely you want F1 to be fast, and not seen as a joke where road cars can accelerate faster. Have you seen the Rimac destroy a LaFerrari? ... probably give a F1 car a run for it's money.

The internal combustion engine is a utterly inefficient thing that wastes huge amounts of heat energy. With our current PU's we are making the most efficient internal combustion engines ever because we are not just wasting it. This not wasting it is NOT about eco crap, it is about being able to harness this energy to make the car go faster.

Can't you guys understand that? ... weird.

If you want F1 to be stuck in the dark ages, why not go back to large side valve engines like they had back in 1910 or thereabouts. Heck why not ban the disc brake and make F1 cars use the pathetic drum brake, and while you at it lets ban the slick tyre as racing was better back in the Jim Clark days on treaded tyres ... I could go on.
Pete

 

This is correct. E has close racing but as a spectacle it's bland. Similar to watching the latest movie without an inherent, authentic soundtrack.

ITV in the UK is dropping it's coverage of E.

And while musing green credentials of EV's, this makes for interesting reading

A New Analysis of U.S. Counties Shows Where Electric Vehicles Cause More Pollution Than Gas Cars - CityLab

 

That's because most people are into nostalgia and would like to repeat the era they liked.
I am not different, but I can also see the writing on the wall.

You are right about future generation; my own children (5 + step children) and grand children have almost no interest in cars, and consider public transport the best. In any case, if they marvel at technology, it's not about motor cars, but energy saving, communications, medical science, music, solar energy, etc... For the rest of my family, a car is just an object like a laptop, or a food mixer, or a lawn mower, and not something they get exited about.

I also can see interest in motor racing decreasing in future, and some aspects of it will be judged anti-social by generation to come.
Watch it, when autonomous cars will become widespread, nobody will learn to drive, get exited about driving or be interested in motor racing, IMO.

 

To me, Formula E isn't formatted properly.

Formula E has deliberately been targeted to urban audiences, ignoring completely the motor racing fan base. Formula E races in towns, not on tracks. Some of the circuits are just pathetic; too narrow, bumpy, with limited overtaking facilities, etc... In some places, the public is not well catered for, so will not come back.

But put Formula E races in the middle of a normal racing meeting on a permanent track, the public could gauge that they can provide good racing too.

As an aside, the lack of noise which many lament, may prove to be the saviour of electric racing, with more and more tracks threatened with closure because of noise abatement restrictions.

The only thing that holds electric energy back is the storage capacity and the limited range.
If that was solved, I would switch to electric power tomorrow!!!

 

It's ironic isn't it. In a world where people are constantly plugged into banging headphones - they get upset with 90 mins of motorsport in the distance, or complain about aircraft sounds after they chose to buy a house near the airport.

Next we shall all revert to silent movies. Chaplin was true a visionary !!