F1 News & Discussions > General F1 Discussion

What's wrong with F1

(1/5) > >>

Monty:
Clearly I do not have enough time to make even my own exhaustive list!
But let me start...
F1 has known that lack of overtaking is the single biggest problem; this is why they introduced fuel stops, tyre stops, etc. Instead of fixing the problem they tried (unsuccessfully) to introduce 'excitement' from pit stop strategies!

Ridiculous selection of tracks based on economical reasons not spectator satisfaction reasons.

Introduction of Tilke tracks that are super safe but totally boring.

Introduction of fixed penalties against prescribed rules, worrying more about safety than common sense and good racing

Pretending that F1 can, in some way, be 'green'. It can't! It has such a tiny impact it doesn't matter. Make them create and use a huge amount of power throughout the whole race.

Get more people to watch the racing. Firstly by opening up terrestrial TV coverage and, in the future, by offering such compulsive racing, people will actually want to watch!

Make the sport and its gladiators more accessible to us normal human beings - not just the mega-rich cronies that have no real interest but hope they might get some more ego massaging by hanging around the pits.

Distribute money where it is needed! The manufacturers are in F1 for global marketing reasons. They do not 'need' the money. Therefore, give more money to the independents. Surely the manufacturers would like to be seen winning on a more 'level playing field' than dominating against underdogs.

Believe me, this is just a start but I thought I should leave opportunity for the rest of you to comment  ;)

Dare:
Give us real racing with honest
passing and they will come.

When you rather go to work than watch
the race something is wrong. I have 100% faith
the powers to be will do nothing

cosworth151:
I'm afraid you're right, Dare. Liberty puts out lists of what they want for F1 - "destination" venues, being green, relevancy to road cars......but not a word about the quality of the actual racing.

Jericoke:
What is 'wrong' with F1 is very existential.

Everything you've listed has created an interesting race at some point.  The 'best' tracks aren't always a guarantee of spectacle, and the 'worst' tracks have an instance of a good race despite being at a 'bad' track.

Watching drivers with low fuel levels try to fend off a rival with more reserves IS interesting.  When drivers have the same fuel levels, that's when it becomes dull.  So the green initiative can create exciting racing.

F1 racing was open to all for a long time, so those numbers are available.  The metrics of entertainment are tricky for sure, but sponsors want viewers who are willing to pay.  If I pay to watch F1 I'm more likely to pay to use a sponsor's good or services.  It's obviously hard to say, and the experts are the ones saying their own job is relevant, so it's entirely possible free F1 creates more value.

F1 is an international sport with a billion plus fans.  Even if Lewis Hamilton met a different fan every 5 seconds for an hour each race weekend, it's not going to make a difference.  I DO see F1 drivers on TV more than I did before, and not just on sports coverage.  I think that F1 has done a good job of turning F1 drivers into celebrities compared to when I started watching in the 90s.

Now, where I agree is the structure of the sport.  10 independent(ish) teams, 2 ruling bodies, 20+ promoters all have to agree on how to do things.  Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and getting them to agree on how to make the pie as big as possible isn't easy.  I know that European rules, and the international aspect of the sport complicate things, but they need to collapse the sport down so that there is one entity in charge.  There has to be one person where the proverbial buck stops.  Even at his most iron fisted, Bernie never had absolute control of F1.  FIA sets the rules, FOM divides the money, Ferrari vetoes anything they don't like... how can anything progress?

American sports use a 'commissioner' model.  One person appointed by the owners who simultaneously answers to the owners collectively, but has absolute power over the owners individually.  The commissioner is responsible for the rules, for the distribution of money, for negotiations between the sport and its participants, for the reputation of the sport as a whole.  If no one is responsible for F1, it will continue to lurch between ideas and interested parties.

Fixing the sport shouldn't be difficult, and can probably be accomplished with a few minor tweaks.

The tracks are fine.  The technical rules are fine.  Access to money might seem like it can fix everything, but we've seen BIG teams beaten by smaller teams.  Red Bull and Mercedes are relatively new to the sport, and have soundly defeated the historically powerful (and rich) teams like McLaren and Ferrari.  True, Red Bull and Mercedes have large budgets too, but what got them to enter the sport, and what stops more teams like them from joining?

Monty:

--- Quote ---The tracks are fine.  The technical rules are fine.  Access to money might seem like it can fix everything, but we've seen BIG teams beaten by smaller teams.
--- End quote ---
This subject will always generate different opinions (although your opinions about tracks and technical rules are wrong..... because they don't agree with mine  ;) ).
But seriously, I would disagree about access to money. You are of course correct that small teams have beaten big teams; but not for a very long time. This is because the modern design and manufacturing techniques are so complex and so expensive the small teams just cannot compete financially. It was only a few years ago that no cars had microprocessors; even fewer years ago did it became essential to have a wind tunnel. A front wing made of aluminium and GRP used to cost around $1,000 to make, they are saying that the carbon fibre front wings cost in excess of $30,000 (and they are changing the design almost every race). The teams now have  fluid dynamics engineers, aero engineers, software engineers, firmware engineers, etc., etc. Only Mercedes and Ferrari have the available cash to invest the huge sums of money (some people estimate possibly half a Billion dollars per year) to be at the front. Of course the costs that these two shoulder also includes development of their own engines so they will recoup a little with sales to other teams, but the fact remains that nobody else can compete. The teams that get close also enjoy huge budgets (Red Bull; Renault; McLaren) but I believe their inability to consistently fight at the front is because they do not have the spending power of the top two.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page