Max Mosely must be hitting the crack pipe again. Sounds like he wants to turn F1 into a CART clone. http://www.formula1.com/race/news/1456/717.html
Will never happen ! The F1 teams will just start talking about "a break away F1 organization" again. I guess Max isn't getting enough press so he has to pull this crap. V8's?????? Gee why don't we just go to 4 cyl. engines, maybe even make it a spec engine? There is absolutely no reason for control tires nor a limit to number of cylinders. Limit it to 2.4 or 2.8 or whatever but don't set a cylinder restriction. There was a huge article in last weeks "Autosport Magazine". Some of the stuff Max proposes isn't all that bad, like raising the car by using thicker planks underneath but control tires? Regards, Jon P. Kofod www.flatoutracing.net
HOORAY !!!!!!!!!!! Maybe if "drivers" start having to drive again, I may actually watch Formula 1 again.
Lets paint some crazy graphics on the cars with huge sponsor decals to bring in more attention to the sport also. Oh wait, that has been done before, it is called NASCAR. The reason F1 is the top of auto racing is because it is where the most advance technology and some of the most brilliant engineering minds are put to work to push the car and driver further and further. To limit the capacity to which a team and/or driver could perform would bring the class of racing down to the U.S. spec levels (ie Indy, CART, and the so called racing of NASCAR). I don't hear anybody over at the drag strip saying the cars are going too fast. Oh wait, they are suppose to go fast. I thought that was the whole point of racing. To out race your competition through speed, agility, and overall ability as a driver.
Max came up with a lot of crazy ideas last season and they were all dropped or heavily modified. Still, I wish he'd retire before he destroys F1.
Some of the proposed items make sense I think: + One tire manufacturer is a good idea. I don't want to see that variable have much of an influence anymore. + Less electronic aids and bringing back the clutch and a real shift knob makes it more like the good old days and stresses the talents of the drivers more. Good I think. o Whether they change engine volume etc I don't really care. + Increasing the field back to 24 is a great idea. Not that they're not allowed right now, just nobody around to fill the slot. What I don't like are: - One engine for two races. That will drive the cost up, not down. And how do you control that? The engines will be stored outside the cars in between the two races? The cars can't go into parc ferme for a month, come on! - No muletto. That will make drivers reduce their risks even more and lead to less passing. Also if somebody crashes in practice, we won't see that driver in the race. How stupid is that. Knowing Mosley a bit, I'd say he just threw a bunch of these out there for the teams to ponder. They'll kill off the silly ones, but might find agreement on some of the better ones.
I think what he is proposing goes against the very fundamentals and the spirit of what F1 is all about. F1 racing should allow teams to develop their racing packages with freedom, to innovate, to improve on existing ideas and inventions that will later translates into everyday cars. Not to handcuff the engineers for the sake of profit and attempt in improving on competitiveness within the series. If he wants equal cars for all, then he should go and watch F3, F3000, IRL, and CART. Yes, one can agrue that racing is a sport of finding out who the best driver is, but at the same time, racing is also about improvement and advancement of techology, and who the best team is that can put everything together and win a WCC. I do not having an engineering background, but I think by limiting various diminsions of the car, most of the electronic driver's aids (Let's face it, as much as I still prefer to do the shifting myself, I think that semi-auto clutch is here to stay and is the way of the future), wing sizes, tyres and engine capacity is enough as is. If a team can make a 12 cylinder that produces more power, more compact, more fuel efficent, more reliable then why shouldn't they be allow to use it. Let the teams evolve their ideas, and the the rules of natural selection take its course as the "bad ideas" will simply gets tossed aside. If the lesser teams can't handle the heat, perhaps they shouldn't stand so close to the exhaust of the other cars.
Some of the things Mosley says makes me wish that Balestre was back in power. Mosley is the same Jerk that was proposing the EU be able to control a street cars speed around the capitals. Too bad Ecclestone doesn't have more say on the Rules.
With respect to V8's this is intimately coupled to the resulting displacement of 2.4 litres that you get if you saw 2 cylinders off the current crop of V10s. I prefer a displacement package and allowing the teams to build whatever engine they want--more like in the 1970s and 1980s. However, I would caution about a minimun rules formula--ala CanAm in the 1960s. We went from 500 HP 1600 pound cars in 1966 to 1200 HP 1200 pound cars in 1973--it was completely out of hand. Engine HP was limited by the tires a team could con the tire manufactures into producing. Progress in all corners of racing improved faster in the CanAm heydays than at any other point in racing history, tires-check, engines-check, aerodynamics--double check, structural efficiency-check,... I really prefer a formula where if the car its in the correctly sized box, weights at least X pounds, and has an engine of no larger then Y displacemene; every thing else goes. However, I think to make the racing on track beter, add a ban on all aerodynamic devices (convex hull). One can also argue that the race is in car construction and the track mearly indicates which teams are making forward progress. Give a displacement disadvantage to the computer controlle dtransmissions::say 2.0 litres for F1 boxes adn 2.4 litres for manual boxes. Bad Ideas get tossed into CART or IRL.
While a lot of people malign the CANAM era, and the ridiculous cars that ruled it, you won't find a single roadrace enthusiast whose spine doesn't tingle when you mention CANAM. Yes the cars were sinfully fast. Yes they were probably only spared by the grace of God. But, if the thought of strapping yourself into a 1200HP Porsche Brumos 917/10 doesn't make for a happy death, then maybe you should take up golfing. Point is, people/fans/historians remember remarkable periods in motor racing, well... because they're remarkable. The restrictions were loosened, and the engineers fantasies become realities; the men were seperated from the boys, and legend was made. The same is true in F1. Think back over the years, and the specters of memory that are brightest will be the ones where you just couldn't believe your eyes, ears, or the spec sheets; the cars were wild; the power levels insane; and , the engineering was uninhibited. You'll remember the 70 & 80's turbo era where BMW were building 4 cylinder engines (using old, used 2002i blocks nonetheless) that were making 1500 hp, and consistenly breaking dynos and twsiting driveshafts/axles in qualifying trim. No matter how even one will pretend to want to make the field, no one will concede that the most glorious moments in racing are those that are so far removed from reality; so close to being a spectacle of passing ephemoral phantoms; and ultimatly, a spectacle so grand , that all the bear witness to it understand its gravity. Maybe I'm sentimental, or maybe I'm too young, and feel robbed of such a "hayday," but in my own mind, racing has always been about apprehending the human pursuit of perfection, and excellence, on a horizon where reality is bent, the imagination is free and legend's are born. -Hubert
I'll second that one! The golden eighties, turbos and slicks, 1,200+ hp. Only real men could ride those monsters.
Tifosi and Hubert I am in agreement. Those turbo cars were truly the golden age. The cars had more Mechanical Grip than Aerodynamic Grip, they had the looks of the wide cars and the slick tires. Watching Prost, Senna, Piquet, and Mansell on a qualifying run whether they were in a McLaren Tag, Lotus Renault, Brahbam BMW or Williams Honda was something to behold. If they missed a shift, bye-bye. At least there was passing and the cars looked Glorious as well. Not like these Ugly Narrow, Grooved, High Nose things.
Well it only took one day but now THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IT AGAIN!! Read http://www.itv-f1.com/news/news_story/20751 Regards, Jon
So, to Mosely it makes sense to make tires last a whole race, engines for two, but refueling stays?! Stick to writing contracts, Max.
A lot of manufacturers justify the cost of running a F1 division because of the R&D benefits of investing large amounts of money into racing. F1 is meant to be the cutting edge of motor sport, pushing the boundaries of racing by combining the peak of engineering with the best pilots in the world. With each restriction that is applied to the sport, the pace of development is held back. In the end it will deter a lot of teams from investing the money they do now, degrading the sport in the long run even if it may even out the teams in the short term. Paddle gear shifts, ABS, etc, you can thank F1 engineers for bringing these advancements into road cars. If Mosley wants to impose more and more limits on the sport than he should create his own go karting league. $300+ million teams will see no point in grooming paraplegic horses.
in houston last weekend I saw Senna's Lotus, a car from the heyday. Amazing how simple those cars were, oversized gokart really, unbelievable! It is owned by an individual who actually tracks it. there is no way F1 can go the Cart route, death for the series for sure. But, another one would probably crop up, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Plus, all of those who only buy Ferrari because they are superior could no longer rely on that argument. Ain't gonna happen....
F1 DOES need to rediscover itself in some way. I'm nothing short of an F1 nut, but even MY interest has waned a bit in recent years. F1 has lost some of that special electricity that used to ooze from every inch of its being. Look how much time we spend talking about the old days. It's ironic when people bemoan the thought of introducing a spec-type format, but take a hard look around the paddock. How different are the cars anyhow? Williams has those ugly tusks that don't seem to make any difference. McLaren has a slightly different nose than the others, which is useless when the back half is in flames. But the cars are too homogenous, and as more and more skills are taken out of the drivers' hands, it's going to happen to them as well. Circuits are no longer judged by their tracks, but by their VIP facilities. Maybe two races in Italy is excessive, but it's dangerous for BernieCo to be so cavalier about stomping on F1's history, easily willing to terminate such events as Spa and Silverstone as well. TV is money, and the TV viewers don't give a rat's ass about the air-conditioned comfort of the brand new Bahrain media tower, or the Paddock club's exquisite dining facilities. While sailing the seas of money, F1 has thrown away its map and merely headed for deeper water.
I agree with most of what you said. I still think however that loosing the Imola race is not a real loss. The track has been castrated after 94. Having been there myself I was shocked at how Go Kart like the whole thing is. F1 has outgrown that place. Besides two GPs in one country is not fair. Nuerburgring should go as well. And for Silverstone I don't have much love either. Brands Hatch is where the British GP ought to be hold. Anyway, you're very right about your point of F1 already being very much a spec formula. What we need again is more influence of the drivers (throw out electronic gadgets, bring back clutches) and more freedom for the engineers by redefining the rules. As I said before, I believe Mosley deliberatly threw out some red herrings that will be tossed quickly, but he has brought up some good discussion points and hopefully F1 will change.
As I have said in the past, the main problem with F1 is that we have very few REAL racing drivers ... ie. we have a 6 time world champion competing against WC virgins ... game over. This is the problem, nothing more, nothing less. What is the solution? 1. Force MS to retire ... hardly fair. 2. Put into place a program that ensures teams are only able to hire REAL racing drivers and NO more picking inexperienced boys from anywhere, ie. it is a 100% requirement that they have to go up through the years, not to get faster, but to learn how to race. Kimi does not know how to race as he never has as doesn't Ralph S. This is what has ruined F1, we have drivers in top cars that do not know how to race and battle ... and when it comes to battling MS, we have a driver that has 6 WC experience to lean on. Too one sided. Look at Weber for example, he has gone up through the ranks, and when he battles he knows what to do and it is cloves off RACING . Put Weber in a fast enough car and he wouldn't be scared to take on MS, because he has that experience to fall back on. Lets analyse: JPM hasn't because he was bought up in CART. I'm sorry Americans but the driver talent situation in the former CART (I believe it has died) is a joke. You currently have Paul Tracy leading IRL or whatever, and he is pathetic. How can we expect JPM to ever be able to out tactic MS when he has no experience. RS ... he got into F1 because of his brother. I'm not sure but I do not think he did much racing elsewhere to learn. Button - plucked like Kimi from no where as a child and stuck into a computer controlled race car ... and he is fast, but he has never learnt also how to race. Kimi - as per Button. Alonso - Not actually sure what his history is, but he is now the youngest winner, thus I guess he has not done much racing either. Oh dear ... now tell me why the cars are the problem again as I definitely do not believe it. The only problem with the cars are the stupid rule that forces all teams to have the same engine configuration ... WTF! Pete
That's EXACTLY why the cars share blame: because a 19 year-old with hardly any racing experience can jump into one and race it competently in short order. If F1 wants to remain the pinnacle of motorsport, then the cars should be so awesome to drive that a novice would be afraid to get into one. And new tracks should be designed accordingly, with racing being the focus, rather than VIP accommodations. And on and on I go...Soooo, the reason young, inexperienced drivers are ruining F1 is because they CAN.
He was trained by Mercedes to be their future F1 driver. Thus he raced their sportscars for a year or 2. He raced karts for many years, F3, etc. I should get a book out to check He also has many years of experience in F1 ... I disagree, other than say the removal of electronic aids. Any good race car is relatively easy to turn good lap times in, but to RACE at the same time is another story. Hence they catch up but cannot do anything about it. Even Rossi in the F2003 was only 3 seconds of MS ... thus any racing driver is going to be able to lap pretty good. Drivers should be selected on their racing ability not lap times IMO ... but I guess this is hard to test, UNLESS like the old days the team managers watch them race in F3 and F3000, etc. ... that is how they used to do it, now they just seem to give them a test Pete
