We, long time F1 fans, need to realize some things. First, the majority is not always right. Back in the 90s there were a lot less of overtaking than now and still we were watching. In football there one or two goals per match while in handball there 30 or 40. Still, almost nobody cares about handball. Maybe the F1 customers don´t know what they want: making a F1 with more noise and action doesn´t mean that it´s going to be more interesting. Second, even if they´re right, maybe we should realize that F1 is not for everybody, and that if we pretend to appeal the new masses, F1 will cease to exist as we like it. Maybe the majority doesn´t care about the tech, but it´s a relevant part of the sport. If the massive herds of football fans don´t care or understand the technology, maybe they should stick to football. F1 is not for them. No problem: football is not for me either.
Formula 1 is about being the fastest formula around a track; Rules get written and you design your car to be the quickest within those rules, until they change again. As I've been saying for a few years now, the engineers know too much and the driver becomes less and less relevant. For a few years now most cars have been finishing side by side. An easy way to combat this is to make the drivers more relevant again by reintroducing the manual gearbox. They reached the pinnacle of flappy paddle technology, it's not possible to get any faster shifting with these gearboxes anymore (in fact they reached this limit back in 2007ish, the only change that has happened to the gearboxes wsa in 2014 when they added an extra gear!). Formula 1 braking technology has also been stalemate for about the same amount of time, if not longer. All they do now is introduce different designed brake intakes for better cooling differentiating by track and wing design. This I agree on and certainly hope they won't. But with Ross Brawn there as emperor of technological rules, I think we'll be safe.
IF there was a great battle for the title between at least 2 teams, we'd complain less, that's true. But I have no doubt that the vast majority would want some aural satisfaction, too! I was at the one race where the Mercs weren't involved in from the 1st lap last year and enjoyed seeing the top 4 battle for the win/podium slots...but still went through my mind that the GP2 cars sounded so much more excellent. This is true. And F1 currently has DRS to give us more overtakes but there is one problem with it: They're not memorable. One of F1's problems (that strangely has not been addressed very well) are the front wings and their ridiculous elements. These elements all steer air exactly where the teams need it to go to give optimum downforce. From the moment they get within 1.5-1 second of another driver, the unstable air gives them less downforce thus making it a lot harder to get closer, therefore overtaking incredibly hard. Even a driver on far newer tires (or brand new) only has a couple of laps he can rely on the tires before they've overheated...but even so, each lap spend close behind another takes huge chunks out of the life of the tires. With simplistic, smaller, front wings, (i.e. their own design but no elements, only a gurney flap for adjusting downforce in the pit) this would be solved. Sure, cars behind still have a disadvantage but far less so, and will actually enable them to follow another driver much closer and therefore able to have a chance at overtaking...but crucially, cars could actually follow each other at very close distance for many laps instead of just a lap or 2 at best, before settling and wait for the pit window to open up. Quantity of overtaking may go down, but the quality goes way up. Imagine a football match where all you had to do is get to the 15 meter line, the game would be stopped, and the guy that last had the ball has an opportunity to kick it in the goal. Who'd watch that? And no one would remember it. That's exactly what DRS does. F1 has claimed to have rectified this by angling the front wings, but I'm skeptical. There are still 30+ elements directing the air where they want it to go, so as soon as they get close to someone, they'll be faced with the same issue. Smaller front wings, single element and venturi tunnels would be the way to go. Venturi tunnels would mean the car behind is least disturbed from the air in front, yet generating a lot of downforce. It's a win win...
You could do lots of things to give more relevance to the drivers but it would make the competition artificial and dettached from reality. For example you could remove power steering and servo brakes to make physical strenght a deciding factor, but it would be as ridiculous as the carburettors of NASCAR. They call them car racing, not driver racing, for a reason.
You seem to echo Jacques Villeneuve who said that the F1 management shouldn't listen to the fans, but concentrate in preserving the purity of the sport. But if F1 doesn't care about the public and loose customers, it won't develop; everything is based on growth these days. There is some concern about the decline of public support, because money if the blood of F1, so the sport is at risk of shrinking a little if the fans desert it. It seems that I have less problem than many watching the present F1. I don't mind a team dominating, and I am not annoyed by the lack of noise. My personal issues are poor driving standards, excessive aggression and non observance of track limits. It seems nobody wishes to tackle those.
Agree in that modern aero has a more detrimental impact in the show than the sound. I think that putting bigger diffusers was a good idea, but they need to keep reducing the wings more and more every year.
I don't think the 2017 rules will make racing more interesting. They don't address the major reason (in my view) why the cars are so unspectacular, and apparently so easy to drive: excessive downforce. I cannot understand why the rule makers don't want to tackle that, and just pay lip service by changing wings dimensions, diffusers size, etc... The rule makers should steer well away from imposing bodywork dimensions, and leave complete liberty to aero, but impose instead a downforce limit. For example 400kg on the rear axle and 250kg maximum on the front axle. That would be easy to police. Each car would be checked in the wind tunnel before the season, and at each race stress gauges and sensors would monitor that the limits are observed. Less downforce would make the cars more lively and difficult to control. If would also eliminate the use of ultra soft compound tyres. Since I mention tyres, the FIA should have listened to Michelin and abandoned the ridiculous 13" wheel size too.
I share the same views. The only reason I believe it'll be more intriguing to watch is solely if another team has a shot at fighting for the title. But the racing, Hmm...I know a reasonable amount about aerodynamics and I just don't see the more angled front wing allowing cars to be much closer, with the same amount of elements on it.
The fact is that they´ve listened to the fans and the fans still are not watching. Maybe it´s because they did listen but didn´t fix the core problems. One good example IMO is DRS: people complained that overtaking was too difficult, so instead of making less aero dependant cars they came with that device that added more complexity and confusion. Now many fans complained about that the cars were too slow, so they added more downforce and fatter tyres. When the fans realize that these cars won´t make overtaking easier they´ll complain again. As Enzo Ferrari said, the customer does not always know what he wants. But the big problem is not related to the fans or the cars: it´s that CVC wanted to make quick money, selling the TV rights to pay per view channels, taking the Formula 1 to empty tracks and sometimes even turning a blind eye to newcomers like Red Bull or Mercedes that were needed to fill the grid. I don´t think that this is going to change with the new owners, but I hope I´m wrong.
Give the engines 86M BTUs of any kind of liquid fuel they want (equivalent to 200 liters of gasoline) Let the engine designers do whatever they want with that fuel. V2, W3, I4, V4, V6, V8, V10, V12, W12, V14, V16, H16, H12, H8, axial turbine, centrifugal turbine, fuel cell,... One restriction: valves are operated by mechanical cams and mechanical springs (no pneumatic valves springs.)
Again, costs will soar beyond anything, giving only manufacturer teams a chance at winning. Also a huge risk of only 1 getting it right, meaning the rest will have to spend huge amount to try and replicate it. The days of Tobacco sponsorship is over, and there is no replacement.
Bas-- "The days of Tobacco sponsorship is over, and there is no replacement. " Ummmmm.....what about alcohol......Johnnie Walker, Martini, Moet etc......
I don't have any problem with paddle shifters, but I have always advocated a return to steel brakes to require more driver skill. I'd also like to see a limit on front wing elements; the downforce should come more from the basic chassis and less from the airfoils (but don't bring back sliding skirts or hydropneumatic suspensions!).
In an ideal world, that would be the ideal formula, but I am afraid that F1 would be even more a budget-driven engineering contest between different solutions, and the public would understand it even less than now, and start shouting foul when one design would impose itself. Also, what's wrong pneumatic activated valves? Do they add a lot to an engine cost? Renault introduced them in F1, but some other engine builders haven't seen the benefit of them. I think an IC engine formula with an air intake restriction would be far simpler to monitor, whilst still leaving some freedom to the engine designers. But I would leave the fuel quantity free, bearing in mind that extra fuel means extra weight and slower lap time anyway. Air intake is far easier to control than fuel flow, as experience has shown.
