How to fix F1

Myrddin · 28-09-2015 4:57pm #1

"Boring", "Predictable", "Snoozefest", and "Rubbish" are terms we're seeing a lot lately in relation to race threads. It seems F1 really is in a quandary, and something needs to give. What would you like to see changed/introduced in order to inject some much needed excitement back into the sport?

I've a little care plan (in case Bernie is reading

):

1) Do away with FP1 & FP2. Just have a single, one hour practice session on Friday afternoons.
2) Points for Quali, in conjunction with reverse grids for the main race based on the quali results.
3) Testing is an absolute must for lower/midfield teams. Allocate testing passes based on constructor points at given intervals throughout the season (less points = more testing).
4) Reduce ridiculous limits on power unit components,
5) Do away with grid penalties for everything except driver errors/incidents (punish the teams, not the drivers)

T-Maxx · 28-09-2015 5:48pm

Tyres and fuel at will.

Myrddin · 28-09-2015 5:49pm

T-Maxx wrote: »

Tyres and fuel at will.

Would unlimited fuel & tires really have any difference though? Would the benefits be lost as everyone is in the same boat?

drdidlittle · 28-09-2015 5:51pm

Weight handicap based on points earned. This will even out the pack over a number of races.

Firewalkwithme · 28-09-2015 5:58pm

1) Do away with FP1 & FP2. Just have a single, one hour practice session on Friday afternoons.

This has some merit but if the single session gets rained out then that could be a problem. Also FP1 has been useful for getting young drivers a run in the car.

2) Points for Quali, in conjunction with reverse grids for the main race based on the quali results.

No, just no. Maybe a point or two for pole but the reverse grid idea is mad. I presume your idea would be that qualifying would have lower points than the race so what would there be to stop the top teams (or any team) intentionally setting bad times to reap the reward of a bigger points haul and everything that goes with the prestige and publicity of winning a race? It would be a farce and totally against the DNA of F1.

3) Testing is an absolute must for lower/midfield teams. Allocate testing passes based on constructor points at given intervals throughout the season (less points = more testing).

Testing was removed for cost reasons in the first place and with the state F1 is in financially this would not help the smaller teams. It might make things worse in fact because if you take McLaren as an example, they have huge resources and could have made a killing on a system like that. That's not fair to the likes of Sauber who they are racing against now and could in no way compete with the developments testing would give to a larger team.

4) Reduce ridiculous limits on power unit components,

Just bring back affordable internal combustion engines so teams don't go out of business trying to pay the $25m bill they do now. Who really cares about all the energy recovery crap anyway? an ICE with a turbo would have been enough. As for the limits on components, I don't agree. The idea of this was to make engines last longer, not just for one race or one qualifying session as the case once was. Longer lasting engines make for lower costs.

5) Do away with grid penalties for everything except driver errors/incidents (punish the teams, not the drivers)

So how would you punish a team for using too many engines for example? They would have (in theory) gained a competitive advantage so that advantage has to be removed by some means. A big team could probably afford to be fined several times per season if the cost / benefit return was there.

A couple of things that might help would be to award points to all finishers. That certainly would have made watching yesterdays meaningless battle over 12th place more interesting and since the standings are based on highest finish in the event of a tie or if no points are scored at all such as in the HRT, Caterham and Marussia days it doesn't mess that system up anyway.

Also, the fuel flow limit is bull**** and along with the tyres dropping off we all know the drivers can't go flat out for most of the race. That's just wrong and something has to be done about it.

Simplification of the aero packages could help with costs too. For example don't allow the front wings to be so complex. They cost a fortune to develop but do you really care about that when you watch a race? Make the wings more or less standard with very little room for development. Any means of reducing costs can only be good for competition as a whole.

One thought I had a while back (and I know it's ridiculous but it would be fun), would be that each driver would have to drive for each team at least once per season. It would never work of course!

apoeiguq3094y · 28-09-2015 5:59pm

The current aero rules mean that if you are behind someone, you will have much less downforce through the corners, making it hard to get close to anyone. This is why they have the fake DRS system.

If the aero rules were refined to have more of the downforce coming from the bodywork instead of just the front & rear wings, then overtaking would be much more real and frequent.

I think the current engine rules are not a big problem. Fuel flow and fuel limits rarely enter into the equation anymore as a full tank is more than enough for most tracks. There will always be a balance between consumption and the weight penalty of carrying the fuel. Engine development should be freed up, particularly for new comers like Honda, or VW if they do.

I think most of the races are actually pretty good. I think the biggest fix would be for big names in the sport to stop criticizing it.

HigginsJ · 28-09-2015 6:04pm

Not to put too fine a point on it but if Ferrari, Red Bull & McLaren got their act together then it would be no issue. Rosberg looks a beaten man (in the same way Webber did in the last few seasons partnering Vettel).If Red Bull left the sport it would be great to see Ricciardo in that 2nd silver arrow, would really spice things up.

A return on refuelling would be good from a spectators viewpoint but unlikely to alter results too much.

Find a way to entice the likes of BMW & VW to the sport, more engine suppliers would help competition. Have 2 tyre manufacturers.

I would avoid any gimmicks on additional points, reverse grids etc.

EB_2013 · 28-09-2015 6:07pm

I'd love to see them just have one engine and one chassis supplier which would in turn help even things out if machinery was more equal.

Get rid of soft/hard compound tyres and just have one slick/intermediate/wet for everyone. Too much of today's racing comes down to tyre choices.

Bring back refuelling.

Firewalkwithme · 28-09-2015 6:09pm

apoeiguq3094y wrote: »

The current aero rules mean that if you are behind someone, you will have much less downforce through the corners, making it hard to get close to anyone. This is why they have the fake DRS system.

If the aero rules were refined to have more of the downforce coming from the bodywork instead of just the front & rear wings, then overtaking would be much more real and frequent.

I think the current engine rules are not a big problem. Fuel flow and fuel limits rarely enter into the equation anymore as a full tank is more than enough for most tracks. There will always be a balance between consumption and the weight penalty of carrying the fuel. Engine development should be freed up, particularly for new comers like Honda, or VW if they do.

I think most of the races are actually pretty good. I think the biggest fix would be for big names in the sport to stop criticizing it.

Yeah it would be good to find a way to solve the air flow issue, I think ground effect was talked about but it never came to anything.

I'm not sure you realise what fuel flow is doing. The engines have the potential to output a hell of a lot more power were it not for the fuel flow and limit. The trade off in how much fuel you carry should be made by the teams themselves.

And what if nobody criticized it? Are we just supposed to bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything is fine when it's clearly not? These issues have to be raised. To be honest, I have been watching F1 since 1992 and have hardly missed a race in that time. I have never been so disillusioned with the state of F1 as I am now and it's gotten to the point where after watching for 23 years I'm considering giving up on it altogether.

Firewalkwithme · 28-09-2015 6:11pm

HigginsJ wrote:

Rosberg looks a beaten man

And he has sounded like one too from the very beginning of the year when he said something along the lines of one of Hamiltons wins being a World Champions drive.

EB_2013 wrote: »

I'd love to see them just have one engine and one chassis supplier which would in turn help even things out if machinery was more equal.

Watch GP2 or Indycar then. That's not what F1 is about.

EB_2013 · 28-09-2015 6:19pm

Cartoon_Head wrote: »

Watch GP2 or Indycar then. That's not what F1 is about.

Yeah but it would be nice to see the best drivers in the world go wheel to wheel. Anything is better than how it is at the moment.

Firewalkwithme · 28-09-2015 6:21pm

EB_2013 wrote: »

Yeah but it would be nice to see the best drivers in the world go wheel to wheel. Anything is better than how it is at the moment.

Sure it would. I'd like to see them to some kart races every now and then during the year

Myrddin · 28-09-2015 6:36pm

Cartoon_Head wrote: »

This has some merit but if the single session gets rained out then that could be a problem. Also FP1 has been useful for getting young drivers a run in the car.

It might make them have to go out, rain or no rain as it's the only session they can use for practising. Currently, unless Sunday is predicted to be wet, the track will be empty for practice sessions regardless. This way the teams won't have finely honed cars come Sunday, and will place proper emphasis on the sole 60 minute practice session they would have.

No, just no. Maybe a point or two for pole but the reverse grid idea is mad. I presume your idea would be that qualifying would have lower points than the race so what would there be to stop the top teams (or any team) intentionally setting bad times to reap the reward of a bigger points haul and everything that goes with the prestige and publicity of winning a race? It would be a farce and totally against the DNA of F1.

Yeah perhaps that would happen. If the grid were a bit tighter though, maybe it could work.

Testing was removed for cost reasons in the first place and with the state F1 is in financially this would not help the smaller teams. It might make things worse in fact because if you take McLaren as an example, they have huge resources and could have made a killing on a system like that. That's not fair to the likes of Sauber who they are racing against now and could in no way compete with the developments testing would give to a larger team.

But if testing passes are only awarded say four times per year, depending on constructor points...small teams might be able to drag themselves out of a hole to at least be able to compete with the next team up the food chain. As soon as they rack up enough points, they find it harder & harder to get testing passes thus ensuring a bit of parity...

Just bring back affordable internal combustion engines so teams don't go out of business trying to pay the $25m bill they do now. Who really cares about all the energy recovery crap anyway? an ICE with a turbo would have been enough. As for the limits on components, I don't agree. The idea of this was to make engines last longer, not just for one race or one qualifying session as the case once was. Longer lasting engines make for lower costs.

I agree, but can't see it happening unfortunately. These eco friendly engines seem biblically more expensive than their predecessors.

So how would you punish a team for using too many engines for example? They would have (in theory) gained a competitive advantage so that advantage has to be removed by some means. A big team could probably afford to be fined several times per season if the cost / benefit return was there.

Minus constructor points? Take a team like Red Bull...is it really fair to have the two drivers starting behind the Manor's, through no fault of their own? We need those cars up the front, not down the back. Remove a few constructor points, leave the drivers alone unless they screw up?

A couple of things that might help would be to award points to all finishers. That certainly would have made watching yesterdays meaningless battle over 12th place more interesting and since the standings are based on highest finish in the event of a tie or if no points are scored at all such as in the HRT, Caterham and Marussia days it doesn't mess that system up anyway.

Also, the fuel flow limit is bull**** and along with the tyres dropping off we all know the drivers can't go flat out for most of the race. That's just wrong and something has to be done about it.

Simplification of the aero packages could help with costs too. For example don't allow the front wings to be so complex. They cost a fortune to develop but do you really care about that when you watch a race? Make the wings more or less standard with very little room for development. Any means of reducing costs can only be good for competition as a whole.

One thought I had a while back (and I know it's ridiculous but it would be fun), would be that each driver would have to drive for each team at least once per season. It would never work of course!

All have merit, except the last one maybe...though it would make for excellent viewing

Arthur Daley · 28-09-2015 6:59pm

Manual boxes only. Not the same since ferrari put those flappy paddles on mansell and prosts car.

No traction control. Let it slide.

No more gizmos like DRS either. Guy is too occupied steering and changing gear to flip the wings.

Get it back to the essence of driving. Yes we know you can put all manner of technology in there (where is it headed, to reach it's logical conclusion just like google's driverless cars?), we know you can impress with the technology. but the number of people excited about the tech is fairly limited. There are more who would love more driver input and raw driving attributes.

Firewalkwithme · 28-09-2015 7:39pm

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Don't be silly they cant go back to manual boxes. F1 is the pinnacle of racing technology they cant be going backwards.

Not just that but I seem to remember hearing that going back to a manual gearbox would destroy a modern engine quickly so for that we need.... new engines :mad:

apoeiguq3094y · 28-09-2015 8:15pm

Cartoon_Head wrote: »

I'm not sure you realise what fuel flow is doing. The engines have the potential to output a hell of a lot more power were it not for the fuel flow and limit. The trade off in how much fuel you carry should be made by the teams themselves.

No I do get what you are saying. But they are already starting to carry under the max permitted because of the performance penalty, so not sure that it would really alter things much. The car manufacturers like it - so I think its not the worst thing we have to put up with.

And what if nobody criticized it? Are we just supposed to bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything is fine when it's clearly not? These issues have to be raised. To be honest, I have been watching F1 since 1992 and have hardly missed a race in that time. I have never been so disillusioned with the state of F1 as I am now and it's gotten to the point where after watching for 23 years I'm considering giving up on it altogether.

I gave up watching it during the final years of the schumacher dominance. Got back into it with the intro of the new V6. It shook things up a bit.

Discussion about what to do re aero/tyres/fuel etc is good. I am all in favour of people pitching ideas to improve it. What I don't like is the negative attitude of some people like Bernie, who was harping on for 2 years about how the engines need to be louder. I think most people have gotten over the change in sound by now. I had forgotten the old noise levels really. I don't watch on tv cos its loud. It might be making a difference for people attending, but its probably more down to a lake of cash in peoples pockets across europe more than anything.

Slutmonkey57b · 28-09-2015 8:16pm

Traction control has been banned since the early 90's.

Testing passes should be allowed for smaller teams, but done at race weekends. Give them all day on Friday & Monday. That allows them to test, but doesn't increase the costs too much. Friday allows them to iron out glitches, and Monday means they're not giving bigger teams two days of free track data. Fewer flyaway races would also lower costs.

Allowing ground effect, more useful diffusers and opening up the technical regulations would take some of the expense out of developing the cars, give designers the option for innovative ideas (double diffusers came from super aguri after all), and solve the "can't follow" problem.

Quali actually works perfectly and shouldn't be touched. Reverse grids, weight penalties and similar ideas are gimmicks worse than drs.

I have a more radical idea though:

No live tv.

Everyone's great memories of formula 1 in the 80's and 90's were made at a time when f1 was a highlights reel voiced over in a studio in London. Watching an hour of meaningful highlights has been a pretty seamless experience on the bbc and you don't end up with an hour of boredom from laps 10 to 35 when everyone's sitting on their respective strategies, eking out tyres and fuel.

Also, ban all radio between teams and drivers. Prevent drivers switching differentials, brake bias, and all that jazz. Get rid of all the buttons and dials on the steering wheel.

That'll bring back mistakes and ensure that a good car can't be constantly fiddled with all lap long to make it dominant. Tradeoffs will have to happen.

apoeiguq3094y · 28-09-2015 8:20pm

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Manual boxes only. Not the same since ferrari put those flappy paddles on mansell and prosts car.

No traction control. Let it slide.

No more gizmos like DRS either. Guy is too occupied steering and changing gear to flip the wings.

Get it back to the essence of driving. Yes we know you can put all manner of technology in there (where is it headed, to reach it's logical conclusion just like google's driverless cars?), we know you can impress with the technology. but the number of people excited about the tech is fairly limited. There are more who would love more driver input and raw driving attributes.

If you limit the tech, it will lose its relevance for a lot of people who put money into the teams. The fuel and engine companies are a huge part of F1.

Agree about things like DRS, which make it too artificial. The current tyre formula also needs to be improved. If they really wanted an option, it should work out that a full race on hards is about the same as 2 stints on softs. That would offer some real variability in the tactics. The softs should drop off slower, rather than the sudden cliff.

Firewalkwithme · 28-09-2015 8:29pm

apoeiguq3094y wrote: »

No I do get what you are saying. But they are already starting to carry under the max permitted because of the performance penalty, so not sure that it would really alter things much. The car manufacturers like it - so I think its not the worst thing we have to put up with.

They are limited to 100kg of fuel per race. If they could use as much as they like there would be a point where the benefit of the extra performance would outweigh the benefit of a lighter car (on some tracks more than others).

Since they can only currently take 100kg, using less fuel produces the best result.

Firewalkwithme · 28-09-2015 8:39pm

Just one more comment, where the hell is Jean Todt these days? It's like he's just disappeared off the face of the earth! The FIA should be laying the law down on all of this and saying what the rules are but they are being told what the rules are going to be by the manufacturers and the Working Group.

The guy just has no presence, it's all about Bernie these days. He's all about money and that's really why F1 is screwed up. It is totally dysfunctional and they are rapidly heading down a dead end.

Say what you like about Max Mosley but I believe that things would never have gotten this bad if he were still around or someone with a strong enough character as he did. I'm not saying he was perfect (before you list all the examples of why he wasn't) but you always knew he was there playing an active role in F1. I really have no clue what Todt has done or is trying to do to sort things out.

The FIA seem to have become an irrelevant toothless body who will simply do whatever the manufacturers want since they threatened to form a breakaway series.

apoeiguq3094y · 28-09-2015 8:53pm

Cartoon_Head wrote: »

They are limited to 100kg of fuel per race. If they could use as much as they like there would be a point where the benefit of the extra performance would outweigh the benefit of a lighter car (on some tracks more than others).

Since they can only currently take 100kg, using less fuel produces the best result.

So you are saying that since they are limited to 100kg, 95 might be better than 100, but that 125 might be best of all?

IF that's what you are saying then that's wrong. It will get exponentially slower the more fuel you carry. There is only one minimum fuel.

p.s. I go back to my original point on this - I don't think the fuel flow rate is F1's biggest problem. The speed of the car is more often limited by minding tyres than minding fuel.

Also, look at the brakes as a different example. They frequently have to tell mercedes to slow down as the brakes are overheating. Bigger brakes would mean less overheating, but they wont' take the weight penalty, so you get the situation where team radio tells the driver to lift and coast to save the brakes.

IF they were to remove the weight limit, they would also have to incrase the minimum weight so that it would be worth carrying fuel.

amacca · 28-09-2015 9:00pm

Maybe stop sanitising it so much.

Stop micro -managing drivers....no help/advice at all during the race bar pit-stop instructions.....leave the technical development of the cars as is, rules etc except maybe bring back a mean banshee wailing kind of engine or find way to replace that with amazing performance of a hybrid.

remove the vast complex of data crunching and analysis that goes on in the background during a race weekend that makes it more and more difficult for a good driver with a lesser car to benefit from other drivers errors or environmental conditions or just a bit of luck.....when I watch a race I feel its a bit to cut and dried...if the best package has any sort of a decent driver theres a good chance you know what position they will be in most of the time + or - 1/2 positions, maybe its just a bias but I think theres less and less chance that a talented driver will have much of an impact in a lesser package. Could I really give a **** if some midfield guy goes for the hard compound has a longer first stint and moves up from 12th to 11th?

Remove as much of the fuel conservation stuff as possible (politically correct or no) I want to see cars racing balls out on the limit as much as possible....less management more racing....do we really want to see cars doing 90% of what they can do for periods of the race just so they can go hell for leather at the end - maybe i have a short attention span but I don't find that very interesting. No sensors or telemetry allowed during race..you go out and do your best....with that in mind reduce the complexity of the cars (yes I know probably won't happen but still)

Let drivers have their egos back and let them win gloriously or fail spectacularly instead of turning them into perfectly manicured media pr machines bring back more of the human element that makes sport entertaining....I don't want to see a real world confirmation of a simulation run in a supercomputer a couple of days beforehand...I want to see more unpredictability.....I want to see a bunch of highly skilled but testosterone fuelled arrogant pricks fight tooth and nail to be world champion and may the best prick win.....they don't even have to all be pricks, some of them could be your measured slow and steady do the right thing kind of drivers...just not all of them....there doesn't seem to be room for anything except heat/tyre/fuel managing pr machines now no matter how talented they are, the need to make a profit has strangled individuality to such a degree that its suffocating the entertainment imo.....Id love to see a couple of egos given machinery and allowed shake things up but you just feel its not going to happen because it probably wouldnt be profitable short term for the teams.

In short......bring it back more to a battle between drivers with real rather than manufactured personalities fighting it out, it doesn't have to be wwe F1 either.

sorry if that was a bit of a rant...Ive been turned off the sport so much that I've barely watched a race this year so maybe I'm in no position to comment as a fine day hurler but I used to enjoy F1, something is definitely missing for me.

Firewalkwithme · 28-09-2015 9:16pm

apoeiguq3094y wrote: »

So you are saying that since they are limited to 100kg, 95 might be better than 100, but that 125 might be best of all?

IF that's what you are saying then that's wrong. It will get exponentially slower the more fuel you carry. There is only one minimum fuel.

p.s. I go back to my original point on this - I don't think the fuel flow rate is F1's biggest problem. The speed of the car is more often limited by minding tyres than minding fuel.

Also, look at the brakes as a different example. They frequently have to tell mercedes to slow down as the brakes are overheating. Bigger brakes would mean less overheating, but they wont' take the weight penalty, so you get the situation where team radio tells the driver to lift and coast to save the brakes.

IF they were to remove the weight limit, they would also have to incrase the minimum weight so that it would be worth carrying fuel.

There are two limits, the weight limit of 100kg and the flow limit of of 100kg per hour. If both were removed then carrying more fuel could be better since you would have no limit on how much you can pump into the engine. If you just remove the weight limit then yes you are right, there would be no benefit in dragging more fuel around so that's why they have both limits.

Frank Bullitt · 28-09-2015 9:58pm

My quick fixes, in no realistic list of importance.

- Bigger engines. Stick a bigger KERS pack onto a V10 with bigger rear tires, at least if a race is boring it will sound entertaining.
- After race test. The freight is already there, do the running with a young driver/third driver, keep it cheap to let more fans see the cars.
- Stronger tires. Tires have have a sharper cliff, so none of this gradual fall away of grip. Lots of grip for harder racing and then the cliff.
- More tokens for engine development.
- No limit of fuel flow.
- No grid penalties for the drivers.
- Possibly re-intorduce re-fueling.
- Get rid of this "greener" Formula 1 mantra. F1 will never be green.
- More engines for the year, open the rules on their usage more.
- Skinnier front wing, lower and fatter rear wing. Keep the FW simple with limits on elements. Introduce ground effect.
- Limit the use of DRS, so the driver has to be strategic with its use.

Very glancing changes, and some not realistic in the slightest. One can only dream.

Cookie_Monster · 28-09-2015 11:13pm

make it more like the v8 super cars

essentially:
simpler aero, move grip back toward mechanical and so cars can follow each other
less guys in the pitstops, limit of 6 say so more pressure and longer stops
remove engine and part limits so teams will actually run the cars and increase testing, either via longer friday sessions or more in season testing.

Allow a bit of fun back in and stop being so uptight about everything

Andrew76 · 29-09-2015 12:32pm

Just some thoughts:

Have multiple tyre suppliers - hopefully this would promote closer racing where a dominant chassis would not waltz off into the distance because they're all on the same tyre. I remember the Bridgestone vs Michelin days were more exciting than now (not all due to the tyres no doubt but still). Just make sure there's no repeat of Indy 2005! :pac:

Make the cars more demanding to drive - not by dumbing them down but make them a lot faster, especially through the corners. These are supposed to be the fastest cars in the world at driving around a circuit - drivers should be physically wrecked after 2hrs of racing at full pelt. There's barely a bead of sweat on them these days (except for Kimi, the chap looks like he's scoffing too many Magnums! :P).

Maybe have some points for quali - make the reward more than just about grid poisition for the race. Reverse grids no thanks!

Allow more in season testing - as other above have mentioned, this would somehow need to take into account costs so as the smaller teams don't suffer.

On the top of making changes though - isn't there still that problem whereby there has to be unanimous agreement from all teams (or almost all of them) when something needs to be changed? When it's not on the basis of safety I mean. I seem to recall that cropping up now and them with one team voting no to some change or other because it doesn't suit them. Get rid of that crap - maybe make it a majority vote or something.

tigerboon · 30-09-2015 8:49am

Gintonious wrote: »

.
- Limit the use of DRS, so the driver has to be strategic with its use.

Maybe open up the use of DRS. There are going to be drivers who can handle a bit of sliding on bends etc better than others. The way it's used as an overtaking aid on a small section of track if the driver behind is within 1 second is stupid. Allow drivers to use DRS anytime they chose even in qualifying.
2 tyres only. A hard and a soft with significant performance differences between the 2 and get rid of the rule where you have to use both.
Grippy tyres/open DRS v harder tyres/more downforce like the old days. Different set ups will suit different drivers. Allow certain adjustments to cars during and after qualifying.
Open up testing a bit, maybe base it on championship position

30-09-2015 9:28am

Yeah the usual stuff about making cars harder to drive. They're harder to drive in terms of skill than they were before. Brundle commented after driving a Force India from this year or last year couldn't get over how bad it felt til it turned out he was almost matching Hulkenberg. Compare that to one of the Red Bulls a couple of years ago when the car felt planted the whole time. Cars are constantly squirming and wriggling under acceleration now.

PopePalpatine · 02-10-2015 9:49am

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

I have a more radical idea though:

No live tv.

Everyone's great memories of formula 1 in the 80's and 90's were made at a time when f1 was a highlights reel voiced over in a studio in London. Watching an hour of meaningful highlights has been a pretty seamless experience on the bbc and you don't end up with an hour of boredom from laps 10 to 35 when everyone's sitting on their respective strategies, eking out tyres and fuel.

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. I don't mind watching highlights, but I at least want the choice to watch the race live. Not to mention that there's going to be some dickhead who spoils the result for you, and you're going to have to avoid any form of news until you get to watch the highlights show. I remember as a younger kid being a little cheesed off at having the results of the Australian, Malaysian and Japanese GPs spoiled for me after overhearing the sports headlines from Today FM.

Slutmonkey57b · 02-10-2015 4:21pm

I'm old enough to remember when that was the norm! Not that difficult to avoid the results for a few hours on a Sunday. Imagine what it was like for football fans waiting for match of the day.

flazio · 02-10-2015 6:13pm

I'd like the engine makers to be separate from the teams, like Pirelli are with the tyres, with rules that any teams you supply engines to must be equal. So Mercedes-Benz provide the same engine to Mercedes, Williams, Manor etc, Ferrari to Scuderia Ferrari, Sauber etc and so on.
In this era of very few engine manufacturers, I think a rule should come in that at least two teams get the same engine.

rock22 · 04-10-2015 10:06am

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

I'm old enough to remember when that was the norm! Not that difficult to avoid the results for a few hours on a Sunday. Imagine what it was like for football fans waiting for match of the day.

Formula 1 was regularly broadcast on TV live in 60's and 70's. Banning live broadcast will only lose more fans. I remember watching it on Saturdays as well. It was not always on Sunday at 1pm!

Cookie_Monster · 04-10-2015 11:26pm

needs to be brought back to freeview channels anyway. Like so many other sports it's getting ruined by Sky etc making it excessivly expensive for the fans to watch, especially the casual fans

Myrddin · 05-10-2015 1:49pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

needs to be brought back to freeview channels anyway. Like so many other sports it's getting ruined by Sky etc making it excessivly expensive for the fans to watch, especially the casual fans

Agreed, sticking it behind a paywall was bad for fans, considering how good the presentation/production was with BBC up until then (every practice session, quali session, the race & red button free of charge)

flazio · 05-10-2015 4:52pm

Problem with that is though, as the season gets more and more fly away races, the cost to do coverage gets really high. The only way I could see it return to free to air TV is if all stations of a language, (English, French, German, Spanish etc) agree to share one coverage team per language.

Myrddin · 05-10-2015 4:56pm

flazio wrote: »

Problem with that is though, as the season gets more and more fly away races, the cost to do coverage gets really high. The only way I could see it return to free to air TV is if all stations of a language, (English, French, German, Spanish etc) agree to share one coverage team per language.

Why does it get more expensive with more fly-away races, do you mean the travel & logistics costs go up...or the rights to broadcast go up? If the former, it doesn't really explain it as the BBC are there for every race anyway, they only show half live but the other half they're all still there for highlight coverage

H3llR4iser · 05-10-2015 5:57pm

I could write for hours about this; For the sake of brevity, let's say that F1 has never really been catered towards entertaining fans in the same way, say, Nascar is. It's always been the case that the guys with the most money/best equipment won all the time, bar for one specific timeframe between the '60s and the '70s when the ingenuity of the "British garage teams" left its mark, with the great Colin Chapman's Lotus being the brightest example.

If we want to spice things up today, there's no silver bullet. Technology makes its course and there's nothing that can stop it. A few things that can be attempted:

1. Reduce the number of races in a season, travel costs are a big chunk of a team's budget; History suggests the ideal number of races is 16;

2. Scrap the silly Mickey Mouse tracks, they are a big issue. When the Hungaroring, which was regarded as the worst track on calendar in the 1980s and 1990s, regularly produces one of the best races in the season it means the issue is not with the cars, drivers or tires;

3. The long-lasting engines formula needs to be investigated; Cost containment was the idea, but it might very well be that making an engine that lasts 5 races turns out to be more expensive than making 5 that last one race. It's no mystery the number of engine manufacturers has dropped since the introduction of such rule years ago;

4. Allow for a bit more technical freedom - lay down the main blocks (e.g. 1.6 liters, single or twin turbocharger, petrol) but make the minds of those engineers go wild. It won't necessarily make competition more exciting, rarely if ever a "left field" idea took F1 by storm (I can only think of the Brabham BT46, the Lotus 78, BMW's 4 Cylinders turbo while everyone used a V6, and Williams' active suspensions), but it adds that bit of flair - and may attract more technical talent to the sport, not to mention independent builders which are badly needed - remember Hart, Judd and the likes?

The biggest issue for F1 in the last 20 years have been the manufacturers. People love them, and everyone is always going on about how "we need more manufacturers!", but the reality is that the way manufacturers own the game nowadays, ruins F1 - they make it into nothing more than a promotional tool, a globe-trotting sales forecourt. Everything starts happening to make them happy - it was Ferrari's turn in the early '2000s, now it's all about Mercedes. The reason we have races in completely absurd places (three races in the Middle East, Azerbaijan next year...) is because the manufacturers want them.

Back during the golden era of the '70s and '80s, they just built engines - and sometimes (mostly Renault besides Ferrari) chassis, but that was it. Their contribution was technical, as it should be.

eviltimeban · 09-10-2015 10:10am

^ That all makes sense. I would say as well that the manufacturers put more pressure on the drivers to be walking and talking PR machines. All this "it's a great result for the team" etc etc. Alonso is sticking his neck out at the moment and this is causing headlines but in the 80s and 90s we regularly saw that kind of thing, with Irvine and Villeneuve, even Barichello was good for an ol' moan every now and again (remember his "blah blah blah" Brawn comment?).

If the drivers can talk more freely and perhaps be more critical / emotional, people might get more invested in them and get behind the "characters" again. Besides Hamilton, Button, and Alonso, most people would fail to name three current Formula 1 drivers.

An idea around testing: if budget is the issue, then the FIA sets a budget for teams with less or no points - the less points you have, the more of a testing allowance you get. OK, this will still favour the big teams, but I'd still rather see Ferrari / McLaren / Williams in the hunt after Mercedes more realistically than they are now - Merc might still have the upper hand after all the testing, but at least the other teams would have a chance, and the midfield teams would still be able to develop their car and give us an interesting second tier fight.

I'm not for gimmicks like reverse grids or anything. But I just had a crazy idea - the winner of a grand prix is not allowed on pole for the next race. So, even if they do get pole they have to drop one place. It would create the struggle between wanting pole and wanting the glory of the race win. So Hamilton wins a race, he has to start at least second place for next race, but at least he can fight for the win. Might open it out a bit. Having said that, I don't like gimmicks!

PopePalpatine · 09-10-2015 11:40am

eviltimeban wrote: »

But I just had a crazy idea - the winner of a grand prix is not allowed on pole for the next race. So, even if they do get pole they have to drop one place. It would create the struggle between wanting pole and wanting the glory of the race win. So Hamilton wins a race, he has to start at least second place for next race, but at least he can fight for the win. Might open it out a bit.

Yes, he'll fight the polesitter off the track. :pac:

H3llR4iser · 09-10-2015 3:23pm

eviltimeban wrote: »

An idea around testing: if budget is the issue, then the FIA sets a budget for teams with less or no points - the less points you have, the more of a testing allowance you get. OK, this will still favour the big teams, but I'd still rather see Ferrari / McLaren / Williams in the hunt after Mercedes more realistically than they are now - Merc might still have the upper hand after all the testing, but at least the other teams would have a chance, and the midfield teams would still be able to develop their car and give us an interesting second tier fight.

See, the problem is that people give too much weight to testing - or better, think it would make a big difference in tightening up the field.

History tells this isn't the case - there were steamrolls and permanent minnows when testing was freely allowed, and the same situation was maintained when it was limited but still allowed. Nowadays, most teams can avail of simulation software so sophisticated that the cars are nearly always running close to full potential (that's why there are 3-4 seconds on average between the polesitter and the last on the grid, while 30 years ago 4 seconds usually separated the poleman from the 7th-8th on the grid); The limited testing that happens these days...it's used to collect data to feed the simulators!!!:D

Staggered testing allowance would be a very difficult pill for the top teams to swallow - I can see Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull making a huge fuss about that...

Last, normally when one team takes all it means that the others did a p1ss poor job; It was the case in 1988 (last year of turbo cars and nobody designed a new car/engine, except for McLaren-Honda), 2002-2004 (Ferrari investing heavily and with a dedicated tyre supplier, while the others, Williams especially, were downsizing) and now - Red Bull suffering from the cyclical "Adrian Newey taking a step back from F1 duties" that befell McLaren before, Ferrari coming out of one of its equally cyclical "ten commanders giving orders to one soldier" organizational blunders and Williams being...Williams in their "nearly there but not quite" role that they also interpreted 1988-1991 and in the early '00s.

As a matter of fact, I can see Ferrari being a solid contender next year as they put the blocks back into place - It's already amazing how much they came through this year, compared with 2014.

eviltimeban wrote: »

I'm not for gimmicks like reverse grids or anything. But I just had a crazy idea - the winner of a grand prix is not allowed on pole for the next race. So, even if they do get pole they have to drop one place. It would create the struggle between wanting pole and wanting the glory of the race win. So Hamilton wins a race, he has to start at least second place for next race, but at least he can fight for the win. Might open it out a bit. Having said that, I don't like gimmicks!

It's still a gimmick, a bit like the ballasts in touring cars championships that are ineffective and universally hated. Again, dominant cars/drivers will always happen - just to give an example, the more "seasoned" F1 followers in here will remember that in the early '90s, during the Williams domination, there was a fairly serious proposal to introduce a pace car to bunch up the field once the leader's gap reached 10 seconds; An idea that ranks second in the "most idiotic proposal ever" list only to the idea of sprinklers to create and artificial wet race

eviltimeban · 09-10-2015 6:02pm

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Staggered testing allowance would be a very difficult pill for the top teams to swallow - I can see Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull making a huge fuss about that...

No it wouldn't be that, the big teams could spend whatever money they wanted on testing, but for the minnows who had no money, the FIA would allocate cash based on their (lack of) points. I know, I know, none of these ideas are really going to work, but there's got to be a better way for the money to be spent / awarded that'll help the teams.

I too hope to see Ferrari, and even Red Bull close up to Mercedes (hell, what F1 fan doesn't) but again the clock will reset itself in 2017 when we see the new aero regs and the gradual return of more mechanical grip. That'll be good, to see who gets it right. Another Brawn-esque surprise?

Harika · 09-10-2015 7:59pm

I don't think F1 needs a lot of changes from the regulations, the major problem as already described is that the manufacturers make the rules and not the FIA, so the manufacturers have themselves in view and not the sport. That led to escalating costs and shrinking fields.

From a race perspective there are only minor tweeks necessary imo to spicen up races, cause who watched historic races will find that the majority of races in the 80s and earlier were boring as hell in comparison to most races nowadays, the major factor there historically were cars that broke down, races where more than half of the field retired were quite normal, even that the leader dropped out in the last lap, but making the cars fragile anymore is no solution. Or a car was not really working with full tank but become better balanced with an empty one and could start to move upwards in later stages of the race.

Tweaks:
1. All drivers can start the race with whatever tyre they want, so no need anymore for putting on the tyre of Q2 for the race start. This opens a lot of strategy options for slower cars. Speculate on SC, rain, one stop less, one more ...
2. Drivers and teams pick the tyres before the race weekend themselves, works very well in MotoGP
3. Stop driver coaching during the race, if a tyre degrades faster than planned, or more fuel than planned is used, so be it and let the driver deal with it.

PopePalpatine · 09-10-2015 7:59pm

I wouldn't mind sprinklers at the middle eastern circuits TBH.

Harika · 09-10-2015 8:13pm

I also wanna refute that those exotic tracks are in because of the manufacturers, cause how interesting as market is Azerbaijan, Abu Dhabi, Russia and Bahrain? Also those tracks pay horrendous money to Bernie to have a race there, so it is mostly done to raise the profile of countries and F1 is happy to take their money, that goes partially back to the teams.

Slutmonkey57b · 10-10-2015 6:48am

Harika wrote: »

I also wanna refute that those exotic tracks are in because of the manufacturers, cause how interesting as market is Azerbaijan, Abu Dhabi, Russia and Bahrain? Also those tracks pay horrendous money to Bernie to have a race there, so it is mostly done to raise the profile of countries and F1 is happy to take their money, that goes partially back to the teams.

Very interesting because they're all oil rich states with lots of potential buyers of very expensive cars.

Harika · 10-10-2015 7:48am

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Very interesting because they're all oil rich states with lots of potential buyers of very expensive cars.

I thought of this, but Ferrari procudes X cars and sells all of them, mostly into this area but you mostly cannot simply go somewhere and buy a new Ferrari. Without connections you get a used one first and e.g. donedeal only lists 5 of them.

Ferrari has its own myth and the newly richs will buy it anyway. Same with Porsche and Lamborgini.
A little different with Mercedes, but here the argument might be most valid as it is easier to get an expensive Mercedes compared to a Ferrari.
On the complete other side Renault, what is their interest as the sheiks rarely drive Renaults. And the poor sheiks :cool: will drive Dacia that doesn't have the flair to be promoted by F1.

Oafley Jones · 10-10-2015 7:58am

I watched many a boring season since the 90s, but the noise of the new engines really killed it for me. It's bizarre that such an inconsequential thing would lead to me stopping completely, but there it is.

H3llR4iser · 10-10-2015 11:56am

Harika wrote: »

I also wanna refute that those exotic tracks are in because of the manufacturers, cause how interesting as market is Azerbaijan, Abu Dhabi, Russia and Bahrain? Also those tracks pay horrendous money to Bernie to have a race there, so it is mostly done to raise the profile of countries and F1 is happy to take their money, that goes partially back to the teams.

I'm sorry, if you think "how interesting as market are Azerbaijan, Abu Dhabi, Russia and Bahrain?", you are not very well informed. These are all rapidly expanding economies with inordinate amounts of money flowing in them.

Sure, in some cases they are "two-tier" affairs, where you have the ultra-rich and the very poor, but still they are a completely different world compared to Western Europe/North America - you'll see people working in construction sites driving around in a Porsche in the UAE.

The downside is Sharia law (not in Russia or Azerbaijan afaik!) - miss a payment and it's jail time for you; That's why a lot of these cars end up collecting dust in the airport car parks while the owner fled the country on a plane. Google it.

Just think - Ferrari opened their "Ferrari World" theme park in Abu Dhabi - not near Bologna or Modena or even Rome, where it would have made much more sense from a tourism and history standpoint.

They elected to open it in Abu Dhabi because it is a relatively newly established market and they want to gain a lead over their competitors - be them Porsche, Lamborghini, McLaren or whomever else. It's something they don't need to do in Europe, where they already are very well established.

Azerbaijan and Russia have significant natural resources and a lot of "newly rich" people; I have a friend who has been working in Moscow for the last 5 years and you wouldn't believe how rich and expensive the place is - easily up there with New York, Tokyo and London.

Sure they pay a lot of money to Bernie for a variety of reasons, but rest assured that if the manufacturers weren't happy, the races wouldn't happen. Same goes the other way - If the manufacturers wanted races in France or Germany, they would happen; If they didn't have a problem with Italy or the UK, which they also see as "saturated markets", there wouldn't be yearly threats to cancel Monza or Silverstone...

Harika · 10-10-2015 2:00pm

If I didn't clarify enough that the manufacturers are part of it, sorry. Still: If those emerging markets are so important where did Korea, India and Turkey go? Cause if those markets would be important for the manufacturers they might put their heel down and insist that they stay and F1 might keep them in their own interest? Cause F1 is also interested to grow their audience outside of europe, cause Europe with 10% of the world population has 60% of F1 viewers. (Sky mentioned this today) And it is declared interest to expand the global audience, so wouldn't it make sense to help them to stay at the calender?

How to fix F1

Comments