I was just making suggestions about the survival of the WDC (the most important one for me), like everybody does on this thread. Don't get uptight about it! If F1 is in crisis because it costs too much, and some participants risk going out of business, why not look for different solutions? That's always the way I think. If the recipe is not good, change it! We have seen specs series becoming the solution against the creeping costs in many different championships. It may be inevitable that F1 itself will be faced with that hard choice, that we like it or not., F1 is already going that way by allowing more shared components. It started with engines, now it's gearboxes, hydraulics, suspensions, wheels, tyres, brakes, etc ... Horner is coming out in favour of customer's chassis, so there is some thinking going slowly towards a common definition for F1. I tend to be pragmatic, and not hung up on traditions or nostalgia. Sorry to be blunt about it, but teams come and go, and that's fine with me as long as the "sport" survives.
Your funny! Who's uptight? About what? I visit boards for a good time. Uptight days involving serious stuff are long behind ....'learned how to not let things bother me a long time ago. The ksy is to respond, not react, to sitchie-ations calmly and rationally. I enjoy discussing your desire to turn F1 into IndyCar 2.0. I want it to remain Formula One, the top echelon of auto racing, not just another series. You just lost me with some of your statements that had nothing to do with what I posted, if that's what you're inferring I'm uptight about. No worries, trust me. This cabin fever's the pits. At least the UFC is still puttin' on it's show without live audiences. (the games/sims of racing don't get it for me) Soon, I presume we all hope......
There is virtually no rule promulgated by F1 in the last 25 years that has improved racing in the Pinnacle of Motorsport. PERIOD!
Several rule changes occured since that. From memory, first reduction to 3 litre NA, then introduction of V8 2.4 litre turbo with KERS, and V6 1.6 L fully hybrid power units since 2014. Also many changes in aero, diffusers, floorpan, wings, and DRS.
Your thinking of the wrong venue. That's what IndyCar did to Indy car racing 25 years ago. There you will find the "orchestrated" "improved" (I assume you mean "closer") racing you desire (or other series with spec/kit cars, BoPing and the like.....) I wasn't aware that F1 was supposed to "regulate" ("orchestrate"? choreograph"?) close racing. I thought that was the teams' responsibility to achieve. That's what all sporting competitions are to be about, no? 'Why F1 is the pinnacle.......constructors, and drivers, achieving the level necessary to compete for victories and championships.....not have it (closeness) "regulated" in....... Fiction? That's what movies are for, a dang good script, a tub of popcorn. Not sports. Not motorsports........especailly F1; a competition for world championships of drivers and constructors.
OK.. Here's more fuel for the fire... Drivers have to be a minimum age of 30..no more punks! AND, not married, must smoke (cigarettes or cigars..not pot) and drink...and chase women....and lets get Hooters involved somehow too. Specifically the Hooters girls..
The progression of the formula post Turbo era(1989) was: 3.5 liter--3.0--10 cylinder max--2.4 liter V8 NA not turbo.
Closer, yes More boring, Absolutely And when they had that wing flap; the driver behind could almost NOT pass even when it was to his advantage to stay behind.
You have no flipping idea what I was thinking. Though it did give you an opportunity to exercise some brain cells. What I really miss about F1 is precisely the opposite of what you so vehemently suggest. I miss the days when F1 was so diverse that the grid had room for V8, V-6, V-12, turbos, normally aspirated cars, even a silly mess called an H-16. I even liked it when there was a guy who thought a proper F1 car should have 6 wheels. Uniformity sucks! Engineers and constructors used to risk everything on innovating inside a very broad set of rules. Now were are in an era where a committee in Switzerland determines the valve angles in a thing they call an ECU, and innovation by engineers and constructors is considered cheating. The men who write the rules have more impact on the Pinnacle of Motorsport than drivers or constructors.
All this is very well, and I agree that diversity and technical freedom are ideal. But in the world we are living, all that would now come at a price not many could afford. I think the F1 rulemakers, we so much hate, try to spread the field by giving parameters to work with. I look at endurance, and I see that technical freedom (up to a point) has meant an AUDI hegemony for 11 years, followed by a 3-year Porsche domination. Absolutely nobody else could compete on equal terms (I mean budget wise).
It is called Formula One not Formula Affordable !!! Only a few should have the guts to try, and the budget (or perseverance) to succeed. Intel chips are fastest because they have the biggest budget for engineering, too.
Well....pardon me...... (yes, no "flipping idea" indeed...I try to maintain "static" ideas about things, unless proven otherwise, as in this case, I think. I "exercise" my brain cells regularly without the need of any of your provocation, thank you very much. 'Appreciate your history lesson but 'don't need it, thanks......I've lived it since the early '60s. ) .........In actuallity. it seems we're in agreement. I take it you haven't read any of my previous posts declaring my passion for the variety of technology that was. (yes, I loved the P-34; 'a shame it wasn't in Firestone's best interest to keep developing tires for Tyrrell) Your posting of "There is virtually no rule promulgated by F1 in the last 25 years that has improved racing in the Pinnacle of Motorsport. PERIOD!" lead me to believe you thought otherwise as the racing was no where near as close in the days of technical varity, yet so many seem to want to dumb it down for a "better show".... (btw, "a committee in Switzerland determines the valve angles in a thing they call an ECU"? Exactly how does that work and how are the seats relocated in the heads at the time of such change??? Did you, perhaps, mean lift or timing change? Or are you talking about damper valving? Yup, I have no "flipping" ideas and just "excercised" my brain cells again just for you. )
Yes, I agree, but when the costs rise beyond the reasonable, that restricts the number of players, don't you think? You must strike a balance and make sure to have enough participants to keep F1 attractive to the paying public. If Intel chips are your model, F1 would end up as a budget race, and that doesn't necessarily benefit the spectators. Flavio Briatore resumed it perfectly when he said: "What the public don't see is of no interest in F1. People come to watch a race, not what's under the engine covers."
" 'a shame it wasn't in Firestone's best interest to keep developing tires for Tyrrell " Errrgghhh. Did I type that? Goodyear, not Firestone...... Mssr william. you're not grasping the idea that some of us wish Formula One remain the leader in technological achievement in auto racing. Not necessarily the best "show" with the most players.. That's what lesser series are for, which is fine. They're enjoyable also. Once again, IndyCar perfect for the fan of open wheel shows. "I look at endurance, and I see that technical freedom (up to a point) has meant an AUDI hegemony for 11 years, followed by a 3-year Porsche domination. Absolutely nobody else could compete on equal terms" Wasn't that fantastic? An outstanding achievement.
Intel spends Billions per year trying to stay ahead. Most of its competitors have 1/100-to-1/10 of Intel's budget. A single Intel chip cost Intel around $200M for the efforts by the design engineers alone. And they produce 2-3-4 new chips per year. In addition Intel spends Billions in making newer FABs or upgrading older ones per year. Intel outspends a) because it can, and b) because it has to. So, yes, I think using Intel as a model in comparison to an F1 team is acceptably accurate. Having watched F1 since 1975, I am certainly interested in what goes on back in the factories. Most of the real cleverness happens there, only driver cleverness happens every other week when they get together to see who made more forward progress since the last meeting. The RACE in F1 is not on the track, it is back at the factory.
I am grasping it more than you think, and I am with you on that. But I am a realist and I think that ideal if simply not practical, for the reason that it costs too much, and is of little interest to joe public. If you want to sell auto racing to the public, you have to offer a good show, what seems like good racing. F1 doesn't exist in a vaccum; it is subjected to market forces. I have always maintained ther are not 10 engineering enterprises in the world capable of creating a front line F1 car. Maybe 3 or 4 exist only, the rest are just participants; apart from the 3 leading teams, how often do you see any other team reach a podium place? Mercedes and Ferrari totally engineer their car, even Red Bull relies on an engine supplier. No other team can match their expertise. So, do you think the rules should allow these 3 to run away even further with unrestricted budget and know-how, and the others to be just ...back markers? If F1 ends up becoming a parade of the 4 most advanced cars (best funded teams) followed 2 laps down by the rest, how long do you think people will buy tickets to watch it? I think the hybrid formula we have now, has shown how far we can go that way. We don't need to go further, and have people attending a GP to see the F2 ans F3 races as more interesting than the F1 ! Also, there is a contradiction here; technological achievement can not be achieved when you dictate so many parameters, restrict development and ban testing.
I don't wish to go into an argument with you here. I didn't know about Intel spending 10 or 100 times more than their competitors, but transposed to F1, that would mean that the leading teams would spend between $1 and $10 billion per season compared to Haas or Alpha Tauri. At the moment, Mercedes and Ferrari are around $400 million each. In electronics, I can understand a company outspending its competitors to dominate the market. But in F1, that would completely destroy all competition! I like clever stuff myself, but most of the public don't appreciate it. That's why the hybrid formula is disliked by the spectators. They are not interested by the technical achievements (you only have to read the posts on FC), all they want is wheel banging and lots of noise!!! You can read the comments at each GP: "bring back the V10", or "the cars sound like washing machines", etc ... Even people at the top of F1, its leaders, are disappointed by the formula, and would ditch it if they could.
"the racing was no where near as close in the days of technical varity, yet so many seem to want to dumb it down for a "better show".... There was always hope that a constructor and his engineers could be more clever than the other guy. Now you need to lobby the rule-makers to see if you can found a loophole. So, you don't just need a clever engineer you need a clever attorney. BTW, I was an S. Moss fan, and Fangio drove an Indy car for the father of two of my high school classmates. Fangio failed to qualify, but the car made the field for the 500 driven by Mike McGill.
You sir, are a pain in the arse!!! I never heard of that name so I decided to look.... 'Came up with no "Mike McGill. I have a list of thousands of drivers (there was, however, a "Fifi Scott McGillicuddy.......), so I proceeded to "exercise" again. I tried "MacGill. Uh-uh. I figgered I'd try McDill and MacDill. No cigar either. "Hmmmmmm...." I thunk to meself, "Let me see......" I checked when Juan was at Indy ('58) and found he practiced 2 cars ('withdrew before qualifying). 'Cross referenced the car #s with those in the race and came up with drivers in those cars. One, known of course, Bill Cheesbourg, #54, entrant was Novi Racing, a Kurtis/Novi, Q'd 33rd, F'd 10th; and your (I assume, but one should never...) guy, Mike Magill, George Walther *, #77, Kurtis/Offy, Q'd 31st, F'd 17th. * David "Salt" Walther's father. Your welcome sir, in advance, for the history. btw, my all time fav and only hero was Jim (you might know of him....he did a little Tasman Series racing...). 'Just slapped LB username on here 'cause it's a Ferrari site.....
George Walther campaigned several Indy cars #77, Dayton Steel Wheel Specials. Salt and Skip were my classmates and good friends. Salt raced Indianapolis, the Daytona 500, and unlimited hydroplanes (Country Boy). I think he was the only person to do so. The constant pain from his horrible injuries made a drug addict of him. His brother Skip raced unlimited hydros, and died in a crash in Miami. The brothers graduated HS together though Salt was a year older.
