I think that's the point @william. You can add technology without changing the essence and core of the sport. Football has done that and attendances and viewership has constantly grown. What football hasn't done is ban teams from practicing or forced teams to play in forests.
But I don't know much about ball games, I confess. For me, if it hasn't an engine ... I'm with you on this William, "Balls are for dogs to chase" Give me something that smokes any day" Cars, motorcycles, steam locomotives, Piston engined aircraft etc."
Just to confuse matters, there should be a handicap system based on ratios and % of qualifying and then reversed track position based on your last race. Plus, Weight, engine size tire size, fuel type and time of day. Remove qualify times of the race date and use the qualifying time of the previous race.
That's what I mean. Neither the pitches, nor the ball has been made to change. Technology is peripheral to the football (to control it, monitor is and stop the cheating maybe), or to enhance the tactics or the training, but I can't imagine it being at the core of the sport. How often the rules of football have to be rewritten? In F1, the lawmakers have regularly to redraw the rules because the engines are more powerful, the cars get faster and the tracks cannot accommodate that. Plus safety concerns are re-addressed regularly too. That's why technology is at the core of F1, as much as I hate it!
For F-1 to be really relevant technology has to be alowed to work and innovate. the rules should be based around two things: 1. driver and spectator safety - make the rule that the cars cant out perform driver abilities - ie - limit G force in braking etc... with a computer nannie that limits the cars ability to accelerate, declerate or corner based on the drivers physical status. that way the cars are always going to be spectacular. 2. Limit the amount of overall fuel a car can use/ carry. that opens up all kinds of tech - regenerative, hydrogen, etc... but limit the fossil fuel it can carry and that all cars have to be fossil fuel driven as main propulsion ( until an alternative is poised to take over) that way you are alowing the manufacturers to use F-1 as a lab for its road car production - it will not be everything - but if its just one thing like electronic fuel injection - then there is an ROI... and F-1 becomes relevant. if road cars can now have active aero, brakes, stability etc... F-1 should too. just makes sense. As it is now its a Nanny formula = spec series ... its so opposite from the roots of F-1. I would suggest that anyone who has not been following F-1 for the past 20 -30 years, read the 1990 version of Autocourse or go back even further to 1976 and then to 1969 - and you can see the evolution of open technology - and how its actually made it to road cars... it think some young "fans" will be suprised at the innovation that was initally spawned in F-1. You can down load Autocourse on your I pad for a small fee... totally worth it!
A handicap system makes for interesting racing, that's for sure. I follow BTCC (British Touring Car Championship), where they have an interesting format to spice racing. Each meating has 3 races. For the 1st race, drivers are handicaped by ballast according to their finish in the last race of the previous meeting. It goes from 9kg to 75kg for the first 10. The others are ballast free. The grid for the second meeting is drawn according to the fastet lap time of each competitor during the first heat, but with the new ballast penalty imposed for the first 10 according to their finishing order in that heat. Finally, for the 3rd race, it's a reverse-order grid, but with competitors carrying ballast according to their finish in race 2. It may seem complicated, but the system ensure that nobody dominates the field and romp away with an advantage. In the end, it's always the best driver/car combinations that lead the field, but they have to work hard for it. That keeps the crowd riveted and the races (40 to 50 minutes each) are not so predictable. I cannot see such a system applicable in F1, the "pinacle" of motorsport, but I can assure you that this recipe works marvel for a national series. Also, the BTCC meetings are live on TV, and go on for 9 hours, mixed with other series!! Pure bliss Finally, no refuelling, no tyre change, no driver change; it's "all balls out" from begining to end. For me, the most thrilling series by far ...
MotoGP has faced a similar situation in the last few years and effectively has a tiered system now, where it is extremely difficult to win races if you are not one of eight top bikes (four Hondas and four Yamahas). They have tweaked the formula each year enough to where the "second-tier" (aka Open) teams now are more competitive, but they lose those advantages as their finishes improve. The same thing could be done in F1. Imagine everyone starts the season on "looser" rules, but once a team wins a race (or perhaps accrues a set number of podiums), that team automatically reverts back to the more restrictive and difficult rule system used today for say, 6 races. Now for the second set of rules, they could actually be quite subtle. For the looser rules; *10% greater max fuel flow rate? *5% greater fuel capacity? *no requirement to use both tire compounds during the race? *an extra set of tires for the race weekend? It would be nice to eliminate the double points at Abu Dhabi, although keeping it in place would cause some interesting gaming of the rules for the 6 rounds prior. Would those rules allow a team like Force India to be more competitive mid-season if Merc/RedBull/Ferrari/Williams were all on restrictive rules at the time? I bet it would. Then if Force India were to have good finishes, they too would be restricted and Sauber gets a shot at a podium until the top teams come off the 6-race restrictive rules period. It would end seasons where one driver or team completely dominates, while at the same time giving lower teams a chance to shine at the front, gain more sponsorship, and be successful in the future. It might also make inter-team rivalry even more intense, and change the dynamics of points for the championship. Strategy wouldn't be just pitstop-to-pitstop, it would be throughout the entire season. The other nice thing is that the cars could be the same (aside from fuel capacity) without having them designed for both sets of rules. A V6 turbo power unit car and a KERS V8 would be completely different.
Handicapping was common in pre-war Britain, allowing cars of differnt types or periods to race together. Most of the races on the Brooklands motor circuit were handicap races. Handicapping was a skill based on observation of previous performances, vehicle characteristics, driver's experience, etc... You could sandbag in practice once to fool the handicapers, but not twice! But I cannot see handicapping being applicable to F1, or any world championship. BTW, some form of handicapping existed not so long ago in rallying, where a time coefficient was applied to some high capacity cars to level the field.
Interesting proposition, but this goes against the ethos of F1, which is primarily to reward technical/driving excellence. Your system would be seen as penalising success. Motorcycle racing is a different atmosphere. The OPEN class has both its advantages and its limitations: more fuel, more engine per year, BUT standard ECU, hence less power. It's a difficult choice to make. If all the factory teams opted for the OPEN class (as they could), the two-tiers system would disappear. But I admit it seems to work at present, and it allows last year bikes to race instead of sending them to the graveyard.
For clarification, all teams use the same ECU, but Open teams must use the standard software while Factory teams are allowed to develop their own software. This is a good thing, because one major hurdle the Factory teams must overcome is only 20L of fuel. The Open teams have thier fuel reduced from 24L to 22L once they get a certain number of podiums (a.k.a. the Ducati rule). Factory bikes must be more efficient in the use of fuel, the Ducatis (Open) appear to have legs on everyone this year. It will probably not matter after 2015 because all teams will use standard software in 2016.
Prewar handicapping was a matter of necessity. During the depression there weren't enough new machines to hold many races so they adopted the system from horse racing. As soon as the need passed handicapping was dumped. If anyone thinks that we have arguments over fairness now...
Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Traditionally F1 was free to explore a wide range of tech looking for advantage. What you suggest seems to circumscribe that freedom.
That is the F1 way. Double-diffuser, ground effects skirts, F-duct...all these things were very clever ways to get an advantage that were banned within a season or two. Today in large part a team's competitiveness is based off how many resouces they have, which I don't think is the true intent of F1 either. Neither is a tiered system inline with Formula 1: some teams have a chance to win races and some admit defeat and take the second tier way out to stay on the grid. The thing about the rule system I propose is that it does little to change qualifying. You still see who is fastest over one lap. And in races, imagine Hamilton on restricted rules. Would he be better than a lower car like Toro Rossowithout the restriction? My guess is he would still be in the points even if Mercedes was the only team restricted, so good is the car at the moment.
Teams that need cost relief shouldn't be in the so called top tier of racing. This isn't Tee ball (getting that way though) if you can't run with the dogs.......... Less regulation regarding the car and ENGINE configuration, refueling, no silly mandates on tire compound(run what is fastest, period),open qualifying and no points past 5th place finish. A simple displacement and weight limit can be imposed, let the designers have free reign. Current F1 is a bore
Less and less teams can run with the dogs nowadays. Unless something is done NOW, the grid will shrink to 6 or 8 cars within 10 years, and F1 become extinct. The only way to maintain a credible racing is to adopt some of the simple solutions you propose and arrange for a better redistribution of the profits. Under the present system (winners take all), more teams are heading for bankruptcy.
There is no F2 at the moment, and the nearest alternative would be GP2 which is a specs series. It's that the way the pinacle of motor racing is heading, God help us!
Well JT is looking to bring a real F2 back. If F1 can hang on for a bit... I wonder if the FIA still has the legal right to run a premier single seater championship series.
