The way to fix F1 - Part 1

All teams need to be more competitive which means more passing action on the track AND technology needs to become more relevant.
How to accomplish this ?


My wish list;
Give them a barrel of fuel for the race. Let them figure out to most effective way to use it. Put the best minds in engineering to let technology reign again.
Some will figure it out better than others.
So how to make them "equal" ?
Cumulative weight penalties throughout the season.

 

You won't be able to change anything because of one thing - MONEY.

Those that have it want to WIN, which means spend MORE.
Those that don't have money try to limit those that DO.

Go back in history, the team(s) with the most money always do well.
It may take a year or three, but they ALWAYS catch up and surpass the leader.

Brabham BMW Turbo 1982-3-4, McLaren Honda 1984-5-6-7-8-9-1990, +,
Williams Renault and then Honda, Bennetton, Williams again, Ferrari with MS,
Red Bull 3-4-5 years ago, it goes on and on...

 

The whole reason many/some of you believe F1 needs fixing is based on spectator numbers.

Have you ever thought that there are only so many people on this planet who give a toss about motorsport and F1. Bernie diluted F1 too far to try and get people who don't like cars and motor racing interested ... long term this did more harm than good.

We need to return to the goals of F1 and they are NOT to make all involved millionaires but to:
1. Select the best car racing driver on the planet, and
2. Develop automotive technology in a controlled environment, ie. a series of race tracks.

The fact that Bernie moved the "sport" away from this is why WE (real motorsport fans) are upset. Imagine how upset horse racing fans would be if they had to pit and change saddles to supposedly make it more interesting for TV?

Go back to the roots and stop trying to make it the world's greatest financial investment. It is not and never will be.
Pete

 

I don't think this will work. A company like Mercedes could easily develop another crazy power unit, and just sell it at a (massive) loss. The Cosworths, Judds, Zytec's still won't be able to compete...

 

Then Mercedes would have to make its PU available to everyone, on an equal basis. Sealed units turned over to the FIA and distributed as paid for. I very much doubt that Merc would be willing to take a massive loss just to power F1 (excepting Ferrari, Honda, Renault).

Of course, they could do that right now if they wanted to. They could cut the cost per unit in half and supply every "customer" team with Merc PUs...why not, there's nothing stopping them. Imagine the delight in Stuttgart when Ferrari finishes 8th in the WCC, behind every Merc powered car and ahead of only Renault and Honda powered cars.

 

Yep, but cramming it into just any chassis won't work with free regs. Deals with teams being made will quickly stop everyone going to what will be the fastest (at that moment) engine.

Even if you make all mounting points universal it very quickly will mean all manufacturers will go to engine X. That was done 20 years ago and teams eventually all decided that V10 was the best between balance and power. Even before the rules dictated that all engines must be V10, everyone had one already, even the poor teams.

 

Well, but not always win. Since you mention history ...

I don't think the Cooper team had much money when they won 2 WDC with Jack Brabham (1959-60). Certainly less than Ferrari and Vanwall.

Ferrari was the best funded team in 1961 and won Phill Hill WDC, but was defeated twice by a private team running an obsolete car.

BRM wasn't the best funded team when Graham Hill won the 1962 WDC. Ferrari was.

I don't think Lotus was the best funded team when Jim Clark won his WDC in 1963-65.

Jack Brabham and Dennis Hulme won their WDCs in 1966-67 in the Brabham team that was running on a shoestring.

Under Bernie Ecclestone, the Brabham team wasn't the richest on the grid, but still obtained 2 WDCs with Nelson Piquet; Lotus, Williams, Ferrari, Renault (Viry-Chatillon) were better funded.

More recently, under Flavio Briatore, the Enstone team (called Benetton first, then Renault) won 4 WDCs - 2 with Schumacher and 2 with Alonso- without being the best financed team; McLaren, Williams, Ferrari were better funded.

There is always an underdog ready to take advantage of a well established team failings, and teams punching about their weight. Last year, Force India beat teams that had more money.

 

+1

I like you analogy with horse racing. LOL

But you are right. There is surely a simpler and cheaper way to determine who's the best driver of the year than turning the whole thing into a circus and making it a business.

The fact is that F1, and those in charge of it, have lost sight of the aim of the sport, and transformed it into a business.

 

/thread

 

Bas is right.
Better sound. V12 or V10 at a push.
Closer battles. Less aero.

I'd almost forgotten just how tight Schumacher v Alesi was !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arwfxeuTDSk

 

Steel brakes. Refueling.

IMHO

 

Agree.

Others on this thread keep harping on at the rules level but you and I can see correctly that the real problem is at the concept level.

Unless the purpose of F1 is corrected it is on a downward slope, no matter what sound or aero they have.
Pete

 

I agree with much of what has been written. But the real overview requires more freedom for manufacturers, not more rules, but less rules. And stop making F1 a video game for TV. One might as well have the cars be drones and be "driven" from a joystick in the garage. I would bring back refueling, make tires free, make the races 50 to 100 miles longer. I do not agree with the plethora of penalties that are meted out. A race has to feel like a race. MOTO GP is exciting because those bikes and those races are exciting.

 

Under the current regs, mounting points are universal. But there is no room to look for a different type of PD, as they are so tightly spec'd.