How to save Formula 1

Looking forward to that day ...

200% agree.

1000% agree.

Not to me, I have exactly the same view and passion about the sport. The ones that can calmly watch their sport go down the toilet are the ones that should not be watching F1.

I would like to talk about Imola. Imola did NOT need the chicanes!. I am 2000000% sure that Senna would be the first to condemn them as ruining a great track. What needed to happen to Imola is moving the fncken WALL or some sort of tyre barrier. Are we supposed to put chicanes on all tracks when gee wizz the cars are going a wee bit fast here.

Italians could not legally get themselves out of a paper bag ... hence another example of how stupid they are has been implemented. Yes Senna died ... very sad and I wish it had never happened ... but he had a racing accident and was living the life that most petrol heads would cut a arm off for. Just because a driver dies does not mean you have to castrate the track. There was nothing dangerous about that corner (other than NO sand trap and a wall) ... it was just really bad luck that the suspension piece went into his head. You cannot control everything.

WHO GIVES A FNCK Tifosi12 ... while all that is nice, that should not be the number 1 priority (as it is now). Look how they destroyed Monza, by removing those wonderful historic pit buildings and putting up souless modern cr@p. The number 1 priority about F1 should be the racing ... everything else should come way 4th, but currently a track (take Silverstone for example) is judged by everything else BUT the track first!!!

Enthusiasts want to see a race, they want to leave the track chatting like school kids with their mates ... that is not happening! ... but the cr@ppers are great!

Nobody leaves a racing track and remembers the cr@ppers, the wonderful pits ... if they are they should take up architecture as a hoby.

Yes Silverstone needs to get these things right ... but that should not be how it is judged, which is all Bernie (and you it seems ) can see.

Well I do. Heritege is important. I like to read about the 25 years of winners and great racers and see RB or MS added to that great list ... awesome feeling of greatness and history.

I'm not totally against new tracks, but I am against them for the current reasons that Bernie wants them ... ie. money! You should not remove tracks like Silverstone for new ones just because F1 can make more money or have better cr@ppers somewhere else ... that is insane.

I'm seriously thinking of starting a movement to remove Bernie and Max ... very seriously.

Pete

 

Pete,

a few comments/replies:

- Agreed that Senna is turning in his grave at the sight of what happened to Imola after his accident.

- You can't move the wall in Imola because of the limited space due to the river, hence the chicanes. Chicanes have ruined many great tracks and the way around them is to make the cars slower (no aeros, fine with me) or to build tracks with slower turns or escape routes.

- I do care about amenities etc at new race tracks. It is not just the toilets, it is everything. Don't be a snob who watches it from the TV, think about the folks who actually go to an event. I do care about food, refreshments, entertainment, big TV walls, restrooms, souvenir stands, good views, high stands, easy parking, easy access, nearby hotels and airports. Maybe I'm the snob, but if I spend all that money, time and effort to go to watch a GP live, I want something for the buck. Imola and Silverstone were abismal. Canada and Indy got it right more or less and I bet the new tracks are a blast.

- Racing heritage is important. I agree. But it always irked me to have two GPs in one country. One German and one Italian GP is enough. They ruined Hockenheim and they castrated Imola. So no tears from my side if they get replaced with some great new venues. If they'd only learn that a track needs elevation changes...

 

What happened to the option of leaving it exactly as it was? ... and accepting that racing is a little dangerous and big boys play the game.

I have gone to 3 GP's ... can't afford to go to Silverstone of European ones, but I would if I could. I have spent close to every weekend of my childhood watching motor racing in New Zealand ... amenties, etc. was not the reason why my father dragged the family along, but the racing was.

And that primarily should be a great racing action. Everything else should be seen as a bonus. Now you get people that want the red carpet rolled out at the airport, BJ's every morning, etc. and gee whatever else. All that is happening is the REAL purpose of the trip is being pushed back and under. I fully understand this is the American 'SHOW' way, and I fully support that the cr@ppers should be clean and working, that the stands should be safe and nice, etc. I fully expect that you should be able to buy food ... but what should come way first is the RACING.

I went to Adelaide many, many years ago on a tour (from New Zealand) and I was amazed that 50% of the people that went did not even understand F1, did not even watch the race, etc. ... they just went to the beer stalls and got pissed. IMO they went to the wrong event, and I do not care if they did not like the amenties, etc.

Fair enough, but do you really think we should throw away 50 years of history at Silverstone over a fixable issue ... Bernie is just using this cr@p as an excuse. Heck portaloos are all that is required, a few fast food places.

Remember ...

• If you want to eat the best food in the world ... er, go on a food eating tour.
• If you want the best musical entertainment ... go to a concert, etc.
• If you want the best amenities ... go on a toilet tour.
• If you want the best stands ... go on a building tour.

That is my point. If you want the best MOTORRACING entertainment you once went to a F1 GP.

I think you, like most of the modern generation want everything ... but in doing so are happy to allow that to take over the reason for F1 in the first place. Thus you want fine food, great entertainment (away from the track, etc.) and are quite happy if the on track racing looses because of that. Again a F1 GP cannot and should not be everything to everybody ... it should be 100% about racing, everything else second or fourth.

So how do you feel about Greece holding the Olympic games again ... should that never have happened. I mean they have had more than their fair share. So just because motor racing was invented and blossomed in England and Italy we now should rob them of holding 2 events. Kick them in their balls because ... gee, lets see ... Oh they only made motorracing what we all enjoy now.

I could not give a flying fnck if all the races were held in England, France, where ever ... again the quality of the racing should come first. F1 should not be about bringing the world together ...

Pete
ps: Think about why your F1 tickets are so expensive nowadays. Got nothing to do with the on track racing you will see ... everything to do with the fancy dancy BS that everybody demands around the event. Food, big TV screens, between race entertainment (have they ever thought of just putting another race ON? ... that is what happens in club racing!), etc. That is what you are paying for ... and has nothing to do with the racing. Remove alot of the cr@p and return racing to its roots, with okay fast food, okay amenities, less stands so you can actually see the bloody racing instead of needing TV screens ... and all of a sudden the BS pisses off and the focus is back to the racing. Racing FANS win and others fnck off

 

You've hit the nail squarely on the head!

Sorry Jim--I misunderstood!

 

Yes Jim ofcourse, something should be done ... but if we continually make tracks safer aren't we just moving towards no motorracing. Lets face it fast corners are what it is all about, and if we make tracks slow well I'm just not interested.

Yes I concede to many of your points ... but the fact is racing is dangerous. You have to accept that when you get in a high powered race car that you are taking the responsibility of a possible injury fair and square on your shoulders. Yes everything should be done for safety ... and improvements sort, but there will never be perfectly safe motorracing ... heck people die on golf courses.

What really gets up my goat is people (like the person burnt in the 355 Ferrari) who sue and blame everybody else for their accident. Yes the marshalling was not good enough, well lets work with them to find improvements ... not sue the track, etc. not castrate the track like they did to Imola.

It's like people who blame the road for being dangerous in a road car accident ... der, it is their responsibility that they took on when they got a license to access risk and drive accordingly ... this obviously they did not do.

Pete
ps: Lets face it we cannot PC motorracing 100%. The very purpose of motorracing is so the drivers can effectively get their rocks off on doing something that nancy pancies see as major risk taking and dangerous. It is about proving who has the biggest b@lls, etc.

 

Yea, yea, yea, & yea. Ferrari is so much better than any German, Japanese, English, French, or American Formula One. It is Italian. They cannot engineer a faster car than those others. That is not possible. Therefore, the rules must change. The others must be able to have a change. So be it. Ferrari is the finest.

12 cylinders are so sweet and smooth!

 

Oops very much sorry Senna21 ... I called you Jim (er, that is LopeAlong). Charles, please accept my appology.

Pete

 

Yes I do have to admit that I did not spend what I should have on safety gear, with the immature attitude that it does not make the car go any faster ... but I did wear a neck brace when I raced an open car, and would wear one if I ever race again.

Yep I am getting older and do appreciate the risks more, BUT in the end as you fire the car faster than the other guy at a corner, YOU are the one taking that risk. And (this might sound strange) but if by some method they could make it 100% safe ... I would not be as interested!

I am honest and understand that part of the excitement and thrill is pushing myself up to and beyond my level of ability and then improving, etc. That is what makes you fast. If you continually drive to and under your limits you will never improve and that to me is what ALL sport is about, personal improvement and thus achievement.

Anybody that says that they are a motorsport competitor and do not honestly communicate to others that they are getting this thrill ... well I believe they are lying, OR they are just driving around in circles content to not push themselves or ever find that ragged edge

Pete
ps: And NO I did not have any fantasies about hurting myself or living close to death ... that is not what I am saying ... but I enjoy extending myself and mastering control of the machine.

 

Jeez Pete, you make it sound like you cussed Charles out by calling him "Jim"!!! I really am a nice guy - I just play a pric$ on TV (and this board sometimes!)! ;0)

Jim

 

Oh dear I have dug myself quite a hole haven't I .

Lets set the record straight ... Sorry Jim and Charles

Pete
No prick$ here just great discussion

 

Your premise that F1 is boring would appear to be based on the fact that Schumacher and Ferrari are dominating the series. Further, because you appear to be focused on changes to the cars and teams, what you are really saying is that Ferrari is so much better than the other teams. Schumacher, on the other hand, is replaceable.

The NASCAR answer to your problem is to penalize the successful team. If a team gains a technological advantage, they are punished back into parity. For better or worse, the NASCAR formula appears to work from an entertainment perspective.

Is this what you are suggesting for F1? If Ferrari in F1 is similar to the Yankess in baseball, are you saying that we need to create a level playing field to make the races more interesting?

But doesn't this go to the heart of F1? Is it not supposed to be the top car racing series in the world? Do you really want restrictor plates in F1?

Your thoughts?

Dale

 

I'm very against punishing success. There seems to be a blind eye when it comes to the priorities of the F1 honchos. I think track design is an enormous area that needs addressing. Despite what they say, tracks have NOT evolved with the grand prix cars. Track safety, yes. Track facilities, yes. Track layout, however, is a mere afterthought. If you're going to continue the use of aerodynamic devices, carbon brakes, etal as they currently exist, then the tracks need to be engineered to compliment the performance of the cars. Perhaps wider tracks where cars can run multiple lines, and fewer stop-go configurations. Some of the best CART racing has always been at Cleveland airport where the cars run on runways. Chicanes? Come on! How many times have they re-built the Monza chicanes?! It's convenient to allow the target of frustration remain the success of Ferrari. It keeps focus off of the fact that F1 continues to cater to the elite and not the common fan interests.

 

Great point. One of the things that gets lost when looking at NASCAR is that, while it may be a commerical success, drivers are dying at an alarming rate. Two of the reasons for this sad fact is the close racing caused by parity and the fact that concrete is mighty hard. Driving a NASCAR race has been described as racing on ice covered by roller bearings at 200 MPH with concrete barriers for run offs.

How long has it been since a driver died at a F1 race? Was Senna the last one?

But, certainly, if F1 is going to allow advanced technologies that let cars go faster and faster, they need safer tracks.

Dale

 

I think what you're getting to is trying to find a way to financially level the playing field, with some sort of "salary cap" like in other sports. While on one hand it would be interesting to see what teams could do given a fixed budget, so to speak, it would be near-on impossible to structure.

Also, "Beware the greener grass on yonder side of the fence, for it is usually enhanced with poisonous chemicals." (I actually made that up) Part of what makes F1 the sport it is is the exotic aspect of it, where teams spend ungodly amounts of money given by multi-national companies in the pursuit of creating the world's fastest racing cars. If you think about it, it's pretty amazing that these 10 (well 7 or 8, really) teams spend countless hours designing and building the cars, show up in Australia in March and race within tenths of seconds of each other, for the most part. Anyway, to control the allocation of budget money would only create salary-cap-type issues, along with all the cheating and creative accounting that accompanies those rules, not to mention a Formula One that began to resemble a spec-series, or worse, the IRL!

 

If you put a cap on how much a team can spend, then it will no longer be Formula 1. F1 is supposed to the be utlimate car racing forum, yes? If so, then the teams must be free to build the utlimate cars.

Don't get me wrong. I understand and share your pain. Watching a freight train run around a track gets old after a while, or at least it does to me.

But I'm not sure that a salary cap is the answer. NASCAR uses handicaps to make the racing is interesting (if you are into that kind of thing), and it appears that F1 is headed this direction, which will make for more exciting racing, but potentially more dangerous.

What's the answer? I'm not sure. Perhaps if more of the TV money went to the teams, they could match Ferrari's budget. But I do think that anything that takes away from the teams being the very best that they can be will hurt the sport.

Dale

ps Yes, I agree with you about MS. The combo of MS and the Ferrari team is a perfect storm that will make hard for any other team to compete, regardless of the money.

 

Dr Who, that is not what Senna21 said. Senna21 wants all teams to have the same funds available, not a limit. Thus in theory ALL money generated by the sport (including sponsorship) to be put into a pool and divided evenly amongst ALL teams. The idea does have some merit.

I went further in one of my earlier posts and said why not have a common technology centre available to ALL teams. This would mean that ALL teams have the same R&D technologies, and conceptually it becomes who uses them better and understands how to design and make the faster car ... not just the team that has access to the best equipment.

Pete

 

It's an interesting concept, yet who would sponsor a format like this? Obviously a lot of research goes into the business of sponsorship. In most cases, there is a match between sponsor and team that makes an ideal business sense. Shell and Marlboro wouldn't want to throw money into a pool if they couldn't be assured that they were receiving the highest profile team and driver in exchange. And what about technological partners? How do you coordinate the participation of manufacturers such as Mercedes, BMW, etc.? I think that's why you would end up with a spec series, since these companies would probably not be interested in a shared format. The only way I could see it working would be something like this:

The FIA requires all technological partners to provide their respective components at a common price. Or, like in video games, there could be 2-3 levels of quality priced accordingly. These would be developed under the supervision and approval of the FIA, and then the teams would choose a package to purchase. So, regardless of how much sponsorship money they secure, the equipment cost would remain capped. I guess that would make it like CART used to be. F1 also would need to buck up and pay travel expenses equally.

That's the chicken, so getting back to the egg, would you still consider something like this F1?

 

People, this is TOO easy. In order to save Formula One, all we have to do is make Tifosi12 take over for Bernie and make PSK the CEO in place of Max. Problem solved

 

Thanks Anthony. I think the only thing that would do is shift the blame from Bernie onto me...

But since it is so tempting, here my proposal:

Car rules:
- ban all aeros, cars like pre 1966 but with the carbon fibre crash test and rigidity of today
- steel brakes only
- no electronic aids, the engine's motor management is decoupled from the rest of the car
- stick shift and clutch
- one tire manufacturer
- slicks
- 3 liter engine, no regulation on cylinders, no turbos or blowers

Racing rules:
- instead of qualifying reverse grid based on last race's result and season opener reversed grid of past year's WC points
- unlimited amounts of engines and tires for practice and race session

Events/Tracks:
- testing limited as in 2005
- only one race per country
- at least 50% of all races have to be on "historic" venues, defined as in existance by the end of 1979

Pete, back to you.

 

Tifosi12, or should I call you Bernie from now on , you know that you have my support for most of the above points.

The only thing I'm not so keen on is the reverse grid, and part of that reason is because I used to love watching real qualifying. Watching them go for the ultimate lap was far, far better than the actual race in most cases. Unfortunately we do not have that thrill anymore .

I might also see the future need to reduce engine size, but for a very long time the lack of grip will solve any concerns about the cars being too fast ... and gee that would be awesome to watch!

Max, er I mean Pete

 

Hey, I want a position too! Can I have the t-shirt contract?

I also disagree with reverse grids. Also, while I miss manual shifting as much as anyone, I'm in agreement with the engineers that it is virtually impossible to return to those days with such high-revving engines. It's generally accepted that even the best drivers couldn't prevent blowing them. Plus with higher entry speeds and cornering speeds, they need two on the wheel.