Vizsla, I'm perturbed that somebody like you who posts a lot in this F1 section keeps getting this wrong and misleading other lost souls. F1 does not want to appear green at all. The manufacturers involved want to develop relevant and current road car related technology, and the current area is hybrid and turbo technology. There has to be a technology push in F1 for it to be F1 IMO. It cannot just be another spec series. F1 over the years has developed a considerable amount of what we now consider boring road car technology. Pete
I agree but that is not what we have had since Bernie thought that adding artificial pit stops would make his TV show more interesting. He thinks he is a producer ... sigh. Now yes if the tyres weren't made to artificially age/loose their grip and we had REAL tyres and pit stops were open instead of mandated then yes I'm 100% with you, but not this contrived BS we have now. Yes Bernie has done a lot of good for F1 (but no other motor sport at all!, in fact he has deliberated hindered it) but since he started to meddle with the sport to enhance the "show" the sport has lost a huge amount of the sport in it and has been on a slow decline. It was not noticeable at the beginning of his meddling but now we are passed the thin edge of the wedge and the way he has made F1 so obviously contrived is why we are having this discussion. You cannot compromise the sport part of a game ... Sport 101 that the greedy Bernie obviously doesn't understand. He really should go and produce a few Big Brother shows and leave sport for others that "get" sport. Pete
Pete, Oddly enough I feel the same way about your posts. If I thought that f1 generated new green tech I might agree. Its been a while since F1 has introduced anything that has been adopted by the road cars. (Sadly much of what they did innovate has been banned by the sport). Where F1 has been innovative is in technology that makes the cars faster. Its Raison d'être. Making it cleaner just doesn't fit its brief. But I look forward to being shown the error of my thinking. Happy New Year Pete.
Here we agree. I'd love to see the teams have a choice of tires. If not tiremakers at least compounds. The only interest the current system brings is when a team goes counterintuitive in their choice. Starts on hards to make up time when the other teams pit and run softs on light load later in the race hoping to gain advantage. Unfortunately teams that make Q3 don't have this option.
+1 I agree wit all you say. Pit stops are unnecessary breaks in GPs; technically, they are not needed. It's only Ringmaster Ecclestone who likes them, because he thinks they spice up the race. What a load of ******** ! They are a real nuisance in the middle of a fight between two drivers. Pit stops distort racing and for a GP of 90 minutes, you don't need to change the tyres or add fuel; this is sheer nonsense. They introduce tactis in racing which should be aboout going flat out, and not strategy. CanAM cars used to carry up to 400 liters of fuel and last the whole race on a set of tyres; that's the kind of racing I want to go back to. Also, do you think the tyre supplier gets good publicity out of F1? He may enjoy the monopoly, but Pirelli now sounds to me like a brand to avoid: their tyres don't last! I see it at every GP
Fair enough, but why do you keep going on about F1 wanting to be green? Please quote F1 saying this, because it is not. It just wants to move forward instead of being trapped to the internal combustion engine. Ignoring you confused green comments, please tell me where if not F1 electrically driven turbo chargers came from? The biggest revolution in turbo technology since they were invented! Agree to a large degree but that is because of the restrictive rules in the incorrect name of cost savings. Traction control, stability control, etc. all came from motor sport if not F1 and I believe a lot of computer stuff we do not know about has ... Again, please find me a reference where this current engine spec has anything to do with being cleaner and/or greener. That is not why the manufacturers wanted this change. They just want F1 to remain relevant and at least a little bit connected to road cars ... otherwise they were leaving, which is completely fair enough. You too mate . Pete
It's beyond me why Pirelli takes such abuse. Running tires designed to fail isn't good PR in my book. If no stops is faster that's what they'll all do so why not leave the option for some lateral thinking and allow the option? F1 desperately needs some variety. As opposed to more gimmicks.
If no stops is the fastest way to race, why would any team do anything different as it would only put you at an even bigger disadvantage in a race? The whole reason we have races with two different compounds and a rule stating that both must be used is because F1 history has shown that if you supply a tyre that lasts the entire race and is the fastest tyre to use, then everybody uses it and you end up with a processional race (which at the time as I recall, all of the fans complained about!). In more recent times there has been far more "variety" in races and with tactics because of the fact that different teams use the two allowable compounds at different times in races and in different ways. Pitstops create another variable to races and give the mechanics an opportunity to be a direct part of the race and to help make a difference to race results. If you take pitstops and tyre choice/use out of the equation then you are taking one of the biggest variables out of F1 racing, and the reality is, you will be reducing the options for "variety" and variation, not increasing them as there will only be one fast way to race! The whole idea of ditching the two tyre compounds in races is just a recipe for a return to processional races as far as I can see!
There is no such thing as a processional race. Usually the fastest wins, the second fastest finishes behind, the third fastest is behind him, etc... Cars have different performances, drivers different abilities, and here are enough eventualities during a race (running wide, missed corner, tyre degradation, engine loosing power, overheating, etc...) to sort out the field. There is no need to introduce new parameters, just "to put up a show", and change the merit order. There is nothing wrong with the best car/driver combination winning, or even dominating the whole season. . I suggest those who find races too processional are not really racing enthusiasts. This "two tyre compounds" stuff is just an artificial obstacle thrown in the race.
Really: (From: BBC - Andrew Benson: Has F1 made overtaking too easy? ) : "After years of complaints about overtaking being too difficult in F1, about races tending towards the processional, about a general lack of entertainment, it might seem a somewhat perverse thing to say." Still, what does Andrew Benson know about F1 racing? (From: BBC Sport - Red Bull boss on Pirelli tyres: 'F1 nothing to do with racing any more' ) : "Some of you - some of you - would like us to do a one-stop where the tyres aren't a factor. You can go back to processional racing where the qualifying positions are the end positions." Still, what does Paul Hembery know about F1 racing? (From: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0277ae6e-a61f-11e3-8a2a-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Nn4Ovt8E ) : "Formula One is boring. It is too processional. The best car always wins; the driver has little to do with it. Still, what does James Allen know about F1 racing? (From: The F1 Times | On the front line: Pit stops with Marc Priestley ) : "There have been times, particularly in the not too distant past, where the format of F1 has produced some pretty tedious and processional racing with the only realistic opportunity for overtaking being during the pitstop fazes of each GP." Still, what would Marc Priestley, who: "has a wealth of experience having worked at McLaren between 1999 and 2009 as a race mechanic and member of the team's pit crew. Marc has worked with drivers such as Mika Hakkinen, David Coulthard, Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button.", know about F1 racing? Even the 2014 season was deemed as being a bit processional (From: Formula 1 drivers: Grand Prix races are too boring ) : "Drivers from the past and the present are calling for more action in what they believe has become a more 'processional' Formula 1 in 2014." Still, what do drivers past and present know about F1 racing? I'm sure you have far more experience of F1 racing than any of those above who have suggested that F1 has had processional races!
Marc Priestley of the F1 Times uses the phrase "the pitstop fazes of each GP." FAZES!!!! Let us hope that this fellow is not a native English speaker. Somebody at Dartford Grammar School is not happy.
+1, exactly right. I know I will get shot for saying this but F1 is not supposed to be mere entertainment, it is supposed to be a sport and I can remember many great races before Bernie introduced the artificial pitstop. Pete
I follow F1 since 1961, but still, I do not pretend that I am an expert. These days, F1 is presented like an entertainment, and not as a sport. In a sport, you let the best to win, and you don't try to fiddle with the results, or handicap the best athlete. When Carl Lewis was the best, he won most of the races, and that was right. Nobody ever thought of handicaping him by throwing a new rule and give someone else a chance. "Sorry Carl, you are so good now you have to compete with 2 left shoes!" People have lost sight that motor racing is a sport. For some it's a business, for other it's entertainment. It's TV which has changed the nature of F1; now it has to be an all singing and all dancing show to please the sponsors, the advertisers on TV, the TV companies, etc.. F1 management don't know what to invent next to attract more viewers, more revenue, that's why they keep adding new rules, new gimmicks to the sport. I don't care if there is 1 overtaking per lap, or no overtaking at all; I don't keep that kind of silly statistics. All I want is the bestcar/driver combination to win, and the others to come behind in order of merit, not according to some silly rule that forces them to change tyre. And if one make or one driver dominates, I cannot see anything wrong with that.
Some people have lost sight of what motor racing is all about. They should watch another sport. Mind you, there aren't many sports that change their rules to penalise the winners and promote the loosers. Do you know any?
Most that rely on TV audiences. Revenue sharing. Salary caps etc. Look at the draft system in pro-ball. The worst teams get the best prospects. Sports are part of the entertainment business the world over and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that the boffins that run F1 have let the sports/show balance get out of whack.
Like it or not, my access to F1 is controlled by the number of buffoons who watch. When I first started following F1, I was lucky to see Sterling Moss, Jim Clark and Graham Hill once a year racing in Monaco. The broadcast was on ABC Wide World of Sports, usually announced by Bud Palmer because he was ABC's suave guy. It usually aired the Saturday after the actual race, sometimes two weeks later. We would go to Watkins Glen to see the USGP and we always went to Indy (1st day of quali and race). One year Fangio drove my school mates' father's Indy car, but failed to get up to speed. My classmate went on to race at Indy. Now I can watch every single GP, live, and usually in my pajamas. I owe that luxury to Sir Bernard and his ability to monetize the spectacle of F1. But monetization has come at a cost...commercialization. Moss, Clark and Hill drove cars devoid of sponsors names, and rules were minimal, particularly technical rules. Things were less gimmicky and commercial but only a sliver of the public outside Europe even knew what F1 was. So, I will still piss and moan about all of the gimmicks and silly ass rules, but I'm grateful that I can watch every mile of the F1 season on a big TV, while drinking a coffee and petting the dog.
I remember those broadcasts too. While we have much better access to the races on TV what we're seeing isn't half the sport it was.
Well said and I fully agree, but Bernie went to far in his greed. He needed to back off and accept that the audience numbers were acceptable back in the late 80's and leave alone and accept that he was going to be an N Billionaire instead of an N+1 Billionaire. His continue push to grow his TV show audience numbers has undermined the reason F1 was watched in the first place, ie: because it was great sport. Basically he has killed the Golden Goose, which yes he made in the first place (although he did not invent the TV and as pretty much everything is televised nowadays I think F1 would have been found). Pete
I always thought I was blessed to have attended some GP's in the 60's and 70's but perhaps that is a curse for us now watching where the sport has come! I will still remember the 'good ole days' as the best for racing and innovation. John
Monaco and the demo derbies from Islip Long Island on the same broadcast. The kids don't know what they're missing. The good old days weren't perfect. We lost drivers every year. F1 has sold its soul and the sport is out of balance when it comes to money but the money's drying up and Bernie won't be around forever. I think that we'll be seeing a rather different F1 in a few years.
