Greta whatshername is to blame for a ton of things
Absolutely! How many times have we seen car manufacturers come in, throw money around like there's no tomorrow, get upset that they don't win, and leave? Occasionally they succeed in stamping their feet enough so that the rule they want gets pushed through. Car manufacturers can afford to simply drop F1 when it doesn't suit them anymore, and an entire team is gone in a flash, uncertain if it gets picked up or not. Garagistes are loyal. So long their accounts are only just about in the positive, they'll keep racing. Ferrari is the only team to have been there from start to finish. Glory and pain. And how often and for how long did Garagistes defeat Ferrari? All the time. It was way more interesting.
The racing has been ruined by the idea that the sport ought to be about the drivers and not the cars. The effort to make all cars equal has been deadly for this particular sport. It's like putting weights on football players so that they would all weigh the same. Even worse, it eliminates the main reason that people like racing -- they like to root for the brands of cars. Same with Indy, same with NASCAR. All have been ruined by the organizers trying to make everybody drive the same equipment. Then the astronomical costs have occurred because of the idea that racing has to be a harbinger of what "The Elite" want Joe Six-Pack to drive -- an electric car. So now we have cars not suitable for spectator racing, and the exorbitant cost of competitive hybridization. The Elite might like this, but the rest of us would rather see car brands competing through their own developments. So how do we prevent the costs from escalating? Simplify the equipment by rule. Eliminate turbos. Allow only naturally aspirated engines. Severely limit computerization of the cars, especially the suspension components. I would even favor return to third-pedal clutches. What is wrong with racing simple cars? Reinstitute the 1.5 liter formula, and it would be interesting to see how much more power today's 1.5 liter engine would have, even without turbos. Eliminate wings, in all forms. Wings don't have anything to do with what people really drive. Remember how great the Can-Am was? Everybody had big Chevy V-8's or similar engines. Ferrari showed up with (I believe) it's first 6-liter engine, and it wasn't enough. Then Porsche showed up with a turbocharged 917, and the fun was over -- nobody else could spend that much. If the Can-Am had had the foresight to stay with naturally-aspirated engines, the fun might have lasted longer, though admittedly one attraction of the series was that the cars were "unlimited." I agree that unlimited anything is not practical today, but the cars should be developed through the work of engineers and mechanics, not software guys.
I like your analysis of the sport and tend to agree with most of what you say but there are aspects in motor racing in which there is no racing, take Le Mans as a good example. A 24 hr endurance event in which most who attend the circuit do it for the side shows and its the place to go. How many actually watch the event for 24hrs? Personally i liked sports car racing in its raw form, as for F! its lame in comparision to the 70's, those guys had big balls.
Our opinions don't matter; we are just expressing opinions here. We may have different tastes, but none of us has any voice at the FIA or Liberty. Those who have leverage here are investors, constructors, promoters, teams and circuits owners, sponsors, TV channels and so on. Their interests are different than ours, and they don't use the same rationale as the fans to make decisions.
7 out of 10 teams have sweet **** all to say in F1 and it's rules. Circuit owners have zero to say. As do Sponsors, TV, and nearly all investors.
Huh??? F1 didn't become a "laughing stock" when skirts were disallowed, flat bottoms were required, active suspensions were disallowed, and on and on. We just had a discussion recently of how you wanted lower tech for "cost" reasons and now you're condoning high tech (which I've always favoured; that's is F1). I'm confused, again, about your stance. Is it my misunderstanding of your context again?
Everybody can vote with their feet, can't they? Some teams have left rather than pursue the arms race, or go further into debts to follow. Some circuit owners have refused to spend £millions to upgrade their track to please the FIA. Some promoters have cried "enough is enough!" to Bernie or Liberty's extortionate fees and stopped hosting GPs. Maybe one or 2 constructors will leave in the next 5 years; that could change the map completely. Of course sponsors have some influence; they won't put their money in a pointless exercise and can starve the teams. Not one team runs without sponsors! If the viewership is shrinking for pay-TV channels, they will refuse to pay so much in future, unless they can expect a better audience, etc ... No one is prisoner of F1; just like the fans the main actors can leave if they want, and that should influence the decisions of the powers to be. If the FIA and Liberty don't listen to those who put money in F1, they will see they business decline. It's a balancing act, but you have to be realistic; it takes time before a change of direction is felt. Covid-19 has been a sharp shock of seismic proportions for F1, and made some realise that perhaps their business has feet of clay.
No, I said in jest that if lowering cost became a priority in F1, the best way was to adopt the Indycar format. It seemed that many were incensed by the discrepency between the top teams and the others. A specs series is the ideal solution for those in favour of a "low-cost" F1 and the "level playing field". For myself, F1 should not be budget restricted, and only teams with deep pockets should apply. No excuse if you can't keep up ! F1 should allow more technical choice, less engine restriction, free testing, a tyre war, customers cars, wild-card entries, 3-car teams, etc ... Apart from basic safety rules, I would go towards Formula Libre with a good mix of engineering solutions competing against each other. Maybe technical freedom would push designers towards enclosed wheels, close cockpits, four-wheel-drive, four-wheel-steering perhaps, or a return to 6-wheel configuration, etc ... Who knows ? That, I think, would provide more excitement than the increasing restrictions imposed on F1 where all the cars look the same, and the FIA legislates it that way.
Not necessarily. Some involved still have raw racing running through their blood. Often in business they wait until the pendulum has swung too far in a certain direction before finally waking up and remembering why they got involved in the first instance. Happens in Hollyowood too. The world has changed - and simpler yet engaging dynamics are already being highly sought. F1 will survive if it becomes a pure and simple not-relevant-to-anything-political spectacle.
People who like the current formula have never seen (or heard) a Grand Prix with a mix of normally aspirated V-8 and V-12 cars.....
Wrong ! You jump to conclusion, without knowing. Try me ... I follow F1 since 1961, and I have seen several formulae during that period (59 years) and plenty of different engine configuration racing against each other. I have seen 4 cylinder, racing against V6, V8, V12 and flat 8. Then V8 against V12 and H16. Later V8 against V12, later V6turbo. Then V6 turbo against V8 and V12, then V8turbo and 4cyl turbo. Later it was V12, V10, etc... Finally V8, now V6 hybrids.
I think people just like to complain. There is actually very little wrong with current F1 other than the cost. It's laughable to complain about the hybrid era. If F1 rules had always remained wide open all teams would already be hybrid. There's a hell of a lot to be said for a small internal combustion engine operating at peak efficiency all the time to generate electricity used to drive the wheels. You can also get all the energy recovery from exhaust heat, braking etc. I have zero doubt all teams would have been hybrid a long time ago. Although if the rules were wide open we wouldn't have got there as the cars would have already become undrivable by humans as unregulated rules would allow such massive G forces under all conditions no one could stay conscious while driving. Also the constant blaming of Mercedes is laughable. It was Renault who originally demanded hybrids, and hybrids were also key in bringing Honda back in. Ferrari were never against hybrids, although they did help force V6's over the 4 cyls that Renault wanted. All manufacturers are moving towards some form of electic, or electric hybrid for road cars, including Ferrari. Do you really think in an unregulated F1 teams would choose internal combustion engines over hybrids when they are more efficient and the technology was already in their road cars? Further there is no way an open formula that allowed 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 cyl engines would work these days. Engineering understanding, and more importantly the speed and power of computer modeling of engineering, is now advanced enough that different teams of Engineers can far more quickly home in on a 'best', most practical answer to a set of questions. When the 3.5L and 3.0L rules were launched cylinder count and architecture was open, so yes we saw 8, 10 and 12 cyl engines. By the end everyone had v10's as that was the best answer for cylinder diameter (valve size), internal frictional loses, best packaging etc. Leave it open and either everyone comes to the same conclusion from the start, or someone finds a better compromise and everyone else has to double up on their investment to stay in the game. Asking people to waste that kind of money these days is a one way ticket to board rooms pulling the plug. We can complain about the lack of sound from the hybrids, but that's a result of efficiency. Indy car engines sound amazing, but they don't use heat recovery like F1 does. Again, in open rules the cars would be virtually silent as heat and sound from the exhaust is just lost energy. Open rules would allow people to go further down that road, and when power is king they sure as hell would. Also while people are desperately turning over rocks to prove collusion between the FIA and Mercedes, let's not forget it wasn't long ago that the FIA was known as 'Ferrari International Assistance' due to myriad head scratching decisions. What goes around comes around.
This is music to my ears !! I don't care if we are in the minority, as long a some people think like you do, there is hope. I marvel at the present hybrid formula, and the efficiency of today's F1 power units. The recovery of wasted energy (exhaust, heat, brakes)is so, so clever, and a shot in the arm for the ICE. I hope its application will be widespread on road vehicles soon.
Oh. I apologize. Silly me. I thought you were jumping, back and forth, over the proverbial fence. Once again, I misconstrued the context of your posts. I didn't (and still don't) see the humour in your postings of: "It appears to me that the"ultimate form of auto racing" is pricing itself out of business. The way it is run, what it costs becomes unmanageable, and the structure looks like it's cracking now. It's only my opinion, you could say, but I read that some people involved in F1 start having doubts that the present model can be maintained. F1 is a business, and you cannot run a business on traditions alone. Soon drastic decisions will have to be made.", "Why don't they merge F1 and Indycar ? It would make sense to have the same cars, and have a world championship based in the USA (where Liberty wants more races) with specs cars. Lower budget to race, more locations, large pool of teams and drivers, variety of tracks, more exposure, it's a win-win solution. Ferrari? Well, they could apply to join Honda and Chevrolet as engine supplier, and stick their badge on a Dalarra chassis like everyone else!" and, "F1 wants to be 2 different things: a championship for drivers, and a championship for constructors. You don't need different cars to determine who is the best driver every year; they can all have the same. It would cost far less, and be more equal if everyone in F1 had the same car. After all, that logic works for other series! F2, F3, Indycar, Indy-light, etc... Talent always comes up, and drivers don't have "a turn at the podium and a trophy for participating", do they ? Constructors have already their own championship with endurance and rally. What about the WEC and the WRC?" No, I'm not picking up on the "jest"..... I do see fence hopping......
I am known to play the devil's advocate from time to time. These posts fitted in the context of budget cap discussion. Liberty wants teams to do the same as before, but spend 3 times less. I think they are driving F1 towards a specs series model. We will see how it will work, won't we?
I have no problem with William's tongue in cheek way of presenting his points. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I disagree, but I like the way we can have a civilized back and forth without name calling or umbrage being taken. William, I disagree that they are driving F1 to a spec series. The budget cap is long overdue and needed. I honestly think if we'd got the budget cap last time it was promised, right before Caterham (ne-Team Lotus), Marissia (ne Virgin), and HRT, we would still have 22-24 cars on the grid and Williams, Renault and others wouldn't be so hard against the ropes. What we need are a set of rules that make it not worth spending the money. If you say a front wing has to be flat, of constant cord and section, max of two elements with flat end plates there's only so many iterations you can possibly run. IT would also help get us out of this stupid dirty air situation, although the racing has been getting better and better despite those issues. I have no problem with spec steering wheels, wheel nuts, wheel guns etc. or the open source design parts. They all seem sensible to me. I do however strongly disagree with the sliding scale of design hours and aero runs based on your prior years finishing position. That is way too gimmicky and against the principles of a sport. You need the same rules for one and all.
Alas, as Mssr william knows, I love umbrage. ('despise name calling though ) Explaining one's rationale (rather than emotion) for one's point of view is what it's all about, no? Entertainment at it's best. Like Monza, '71. Indy, '82. Le Mans, '69. Daytona, '76.
I am not quite sure this present hybrid formula would had been advocated by some constructors and voted by the rest of the teams, IF there was a $145M budget cap at the time. Faced with the task of developping new power units, that would have looked impossible. They would have probably opted for a more conventional engine, and missed creating some masterpieces of engineering. That's why I am in principle against the idea of budget cap. Facts is that money is spent in different directions. The hybrid formula is taking the rap for the increased costs, that threaten some teams, when it seems to me that the money is mostly wasted or aero. There is hardly any point obtaining a fixed price for engines to customer teams, if the money saved is spent on new wings at each GP. At the same time standardising wings goes a little bit against the ethos of F1. In any case, I cannot see how you can enforce a budget cap, and I suspect it will open a new area for cheating. Teams operate in different countries, with different economics, labour costs, tax systems, overheads, etc ...
A lot of constructive suggestions. If only the FIA were listening. I started watching F1 in the noughties then increasingly as BBC and Channel 4 coverage improved. SKY was a game changer with HD. It was a better experience than going to see it from the cheap seats sorry I meant grass. So for me 2018 was the pinnacle with very hard, hard, medium, soft, super soft, ultra soft and hyper soft. When that was decreed too complicated for viewers, they lost me and the plot. I don't like being called stupid, who does. So I cancelled the subscription and now get more pleasure from tinkering with my own cars than watching highlights. The shame is that many of the innovations and ideas have not made it to road vehicles. Where is flame ignition, heat recovery, engine prewarming? You have to be a landie or scout owner in the icy outback to take an interest in pre-heating. ICE-electric was not an F1 innovation and whilst a small 3 cylinder engine buzzing away at 15,000 rpm to charge a laptop battery might be efficient, it isn't the kind of motorsport I want to watch nor does it offer the driving experience I'll ever buy as a road car. Watching races from the 80s, 90s and 00s now, I gasp, cover my eyes and wince at the shocking crashes. Who needs wheels flying through the air, cars doing somersaults and bursting into flames in the pits? I was on the fence about the halo but as I have a fat A pillar in my two o'clock I'll put up with the halo strut on an F1 car as I don't want another driver to die. Mercedes, computer modelling and huge budgets brought giant leaps in reliability. People used to complain about cars not finishing, but now many races are decided by computer strategy algorithms and many more by penalties for rule infringements. IMHO some race tracks are devoid of interest or real challenges. Coloured run off areas and cones to go around make tracks look like a cross between a billboard and a motorway repair zone. The greats are Interlagos, Monaco, Silverstone, Spa and Suzuka, but the new money puts some of these in doubt and some as alternates. Never keen on Barcelona and the newer circuits lack 'je ne sais quoi' although Austin grew on me. Baku was growing on me too and I like the night races spectaculars at Singapore and Abu Dhabi. So may be newer venues have a place if ever increased revenues and costs are the goal. Sadly some of these tracks see very little use which is I suppose a waste of resources, but a telling tale of the lesser interest in other formulas. Formulas with matched machines and cars that look like inflated road cars lack the exotic eye candy news worthy appeal of F1. Perhaps that's why Ferrari have done so well and why Mercedes invested so heavily in securing a piece of the action. Greta has a point. We are the only species destroying our planet. However, it is not the cars going around that is the problem. It is all the trucks and cargo planes to shift everything from venue to venue, the spectators travelling huge distances to watch and all the people and goods driving to the factories that is 99.9% of the problem. So F1 is a reflection of the complications of modern society. If Ross Brawn can change F1 behind the scenes it will have a bigger impact, put off the day the lights go out, and lead the way for the rest of humanity to follow.
No way would any team chose hybrid in an open formula! The weight penalty is too great. If unrestricted, I am fairly certain we would see small turbo engines with boost set to kablammo on race distance plus 1 lap! And that is exactly what I want!!
It would probably be the most attractive if not the most sophisticated solution for a quick fix. The benefits of turbos are well known, and no modern engine can ignore them. This is why the proposal to bring back big atmospheric V10 or V12 seems so ludicrous.
The battery technology is still in progress. There will come a time when batteries will be integrated in the structure of a vehicle. Research is ongoing to save some weight by making energy storage part of the chassis.
Agreed. Open formula is just not doable at this point in time due to cost. We had it in the 80's and we'll just end up with V6 turbo's again. RPM Limited (either via ECU or Mitch's suggestion of steel springs) NA 3.5 liter V10/12 will be ideal for cost/power/aural pleasure. At around 16K RPM those engines will easily produce over 1000 bhp.
