Better late than never I suppose but it’s all been done before and in a more globally inclusive way. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Mandating a different WDC and WCC every x number of years would increase diversity. As would enforcing all drivers get a shot at a competitive car and vice versa. Why does LH have 6 WDC's and Merc 6 WCC's when Alonso and Ferrari are as good or better. Seriously, keep it simple and Keep It (a) Sport. We don't need no ... entertainment.
Amen. I’ve been saying this since the advent of the ridiculous tire regulations. The tire manufacturers can build a tire that will go a full race distance. The only reasons for a pit stop should be for a mechanical problem, swapping wet/inter/dry compounds or for a penalty.
Neither refueling nor mandated tire changed adds to the racing. And then there is that silly pit-speed-limit thing.
I like different strategies but it should be up to each team. mid you want to stop 5 times for tires and fuel because that is the fastest result for you car... go for it. If you want to fill it to the brim,... put on hard tires,... and run a no stop strategy... go for it. It should be about finishing the mandated distance in the shortest time. it’s the mandating different compounds that is just silly. Pirelli should offer 5 dry weather compounds for the season. The teams should run whatever they want.
Am I correct that Renault was the impetus for the hybrid power plants? I thought I read it somewhere, perhaps here. If so, it is karma that the expense of these units has had a negative effect on their F1 effort. Just my opinion, but the technology overlap between F1 and road cars grows smaller each year, with less relevance for the average fan. The technology used in the cars is so closely guarded that the livery becomes the only thing new that can be shown to the fans. Sad news for us...
Mercedes was the one pushing it. Then came audi, who wanted it as well, and promised to join if the demands set by Mercedes would be met (initially a 4 cyl turbo with all the hybrid crap we have now). When it became V6 audi dropped out. Renault went along with the ride, once again underestimating the scale of the project...and when it turned out their engine was ****, couldn't be bothered spending the money to make it right anyways. The biggest, most idiotic out of the whole saga though, was the development freeze. Such complicated engines and they do that. Mercedes with 70-100hp advantage over the slowest engines.
Lewis made better choices along the way. Alonso has been shown to be toxic. Ferrari only gets their act together 5 years out of 20.
And can only deliver when they have exceptional drivers with development talent. Lauda pulled it off and then Schumacher. Sticking with Mercedes was a good choice by Hamilton. He would struggle for sure.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/150649/fia-didnt-investigate-racing-point-brake-ducts The FIA has confirmed it did not inspect Racing Point's contentious brake ducts when it conducted an investigation into the RP20 before the original opening race in Australia. After the car first appeared in Barcelona testing its overall similarity to last year's Mercedes W10 was noted by rivals, who raised their suspicions of illicit sharing of IP with the FIA. The FIA's head of single-seater technical matters Nikolas Tombazis subsequently visited Racing Point's factory, where the team showed him evidence of how it had used photographs to "reverse engineer" the general aerodynamic concept of the Mercedes, a process that is legal when replicating listed parts. After the Styrian Grand Prix Renault protested the front and rear brake ducts on the Racing Point cars, in essence arguing that information shared in 2019 - when brake ducts were not listed parts - has been used on the 2020 car. Racing Point has consistently argued that the FIA inspected the car and passed it legal. However Tombazis admits that while the FIA approved the car in general, it didn't look specifically at the brake ducts that have now become the focus of Renault's protest. "We did have some noises made by some teams over February, and we decided to investigate before Australia, and we did go to the Racing Point factory," he said when asked by Autosport about the investigation. "We primarily focussed on the rest of the car, not the brake ducts, fortunately or unfortunately. The rest of the car was extremely similar, and the rest of the car was listed both last year and this year, so there were no excuses in any form or shape. "If the rest of the car had been somehow obtained though CAD information, that would have been blatantly illegal. In fact it would be implicating both Mercedes and Racing Point very heavily. "So when we went there we looked into this matter, we looked primarily at the rest of the car, and we were convinced by what we saw that what Racing Point have been saying as their process of taking photographs and reverse engineering from the photos was very plausible.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/150638/renault-racing-point-protest-is-about-f1-future "There's a great opportunity, together with the '22 regulations, the technical regulations with the car being able to follow each other, overtake each other, [creating] better racing. "There's a great opportunity for the sport to have 10 teams fighting on equal terms, and for us it's important to clarify what level of exchanges are permissible. "Is it permissible to get parts or get geometries from another team and use them on your car or not? Because we don't think that's the right model for F1 in the future. "It's really beyond the protest, beyond this race. It's what kind of model we want for the future of F1." Budkowski's view is shared by McLaren team boss Andreas Seidl, who said earlier on Friday that F1 risked becoming a "copying championship" were Racing Point's model to be pushed to the extreme. Budkowski added that he was "fully confident in what the FIA is doing" with their investigation, with a resolution expected ahead of the British Grand Prix at the start of August.
There's a few reasons why F1 is falling apart: 1. It's bloody predictable. The same dude that starts in pole will most likely win 2. The cars are ugly, and looks like a bus 3. The banning of tobacco sponsors practically killed the smaller teams 4. Manufactures have too much of power 5. Way too much technology on the cars 6. Aero problems 7. they race in mostly car park circuits these days 8. The damn v6 vacuum cleaner sounds 9. Pirelli 10. No testing, and no engine developments
1) You expect the best car in qualifs to be also the best car in the race. 2) F1 is not a Concours. Cars are designed to be aerodynamically efficient, not good looking. 3) Tobacco killed many peole, and still does!!! If tobacco was allowed again, why not drug money ? 4) Manufacturers are the biggest investors in F1. 5) F1 is supposed to be the spearhead of technology. 6) I agree, too much emphasis on aero, too much design freedom and too much spent there. 7) Are Silverstone, Monza, Spa, Spielberg, Zandvoort, Montreal, Suzuka Mexico City, and Monte Carlo car parks? I didn't notice. 8) Modern vacuum cleaners are quite silent. 9) I agree, Mandated tyres and a single supplier spoil the racing. But it's cost effective. 10) Both agreed by the teams when the rules were written, on cost saving grounds. I don't think F1 is falling apart; it's just changing, and the people reluctant to change spend their time fighting it.
I think the sound of the cars is such an overblown complaint. I’ve been to quite a few races and the sound would be the last thing I would think to complain about. Especially considering how many on this forum think their modified exhaust sounds like God’s chariot when it actually sounds like crap. Above car aero not allowing cars to follow closely is probably the biggest detriment to passing that can easily be remedied. People complain about passing but if the fastest car starts in front what do you expect? Increase mechanical grip, limit above aero. I’m in favor of hybrid power units. I think its cool. Sky high revving units are also cool but has been done for a long time. And I can see how major manufacturers want to be able to utilize it for marketing and r&d. Makes sense. Almost all manufacturers have moved to small displacement turbo motors. Weren’t many cars in 80s formula 1 turbo? Why complain now... F1 is not popular because the population doesn’t care about cars as much as they once did. There is a generational shift occurring and car ownership is not what it once was. It’s not the symbol of freedom for most that it was in the past. It’s similar to the rise in e-sports vs actually playing football after school. If F1 wants to increase its popularity it needs to increase the drama, storylines etc. Sports in the USA exploded over the last 30 yrs because of 24/7 coverage and storylines. And while USA is not the world, I imagine that the similar rise in e-sports across the globe is indicative of the same shifts happening in yankee-land.
Yup. 'Been sayin' that about all of racing for about the past decade. I don't like it but your "drama, storylines etc." seems to be what the new "fans" want. With it, I'm losing interest, but I caught the real and good ('60s- '90s) so I'm good.....
Ubër creates far more freedom than owning a car. Many of these first time car buyers are strapped for money due to college loans being so outrageously high. Sports may have exploded, but I watch less and less of it these days. Maybe, maybe not--and then there is the internet for all kinds of entertainment.
