GPWizard F1 Forum

F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: monty on June 24, 2019, 01:05:31 PM

Title: What's wrong with F1
Post by: monty on June 24, 2019, 01:05:31 PM
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  ;)
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: Dare on June 24, 2019, 01:33:34 PM
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
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: cosworth151 on June 24, 2019, 03:25:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: Jericoke on June 24, 2019, 04:12:42 PM
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?
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: monty on June 25, 2019, 10:00:36 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: Jericoke on June 25, 2019, 02:58:09 PM
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.
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.

1)  I'm glad we can disagree.  If we just shared one view on F1 it would get dull fast around here.

2)  I rushed my point about money.  I'd meant to include the idea that all the 'money saving' rules end up favouring the teams with deeper pockets.  If there's little innovation allowed, then the rich teams can iterate their way to the best car.  Brawn famously won the championship by using a creative diffuser.  Red Bull by using 'flexible', yet legal, front wings.  These things simply can't happen, and ironically they can't happen in the name of saving money.  My point meant to be, giving the 'poor' teams more money won't solve these problems. Not as the only change.
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: rmassart on June 27, 2019, 07:34:39 AM
Stuck in the usual traffic jam this morning, driving a manual gearbox car, the thought came to me that one thing which might help is a return to a proper manual gear stick and a "left foot" clutch like in my car. 

I don't really know how much skill is involved anymore in changing gears nowadays, but for me if you have to take a hand off the steering wheel and physically move a gear stick, the scope of errors increases and so will the chance of an overtake due to a missed gear change.

I believe this idea gets raised from time to time and gets refused on safety grounds, but please, these are supposed to be the best of the best racing drivers on the planet. If they can't change manual gears safely, perhaps they should return to karting!
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: Jericoke on June 27, 2019, 03:30:44 PM
Stuck in the usual traffic jam this morning, driving a manual gearbox car, the thought came to me that one thing which might help is a return to a proper manual gear stick and a "left foot" clutch like in my car. 

I don't really know how much skill is involved anymore in changing gears nowadays, but for me if you have to take a hand off the steering wheel and physically move a gear stick, the scope of errors increases and so will the chance of an overtake due to a missed gear change.

I believe this idea gets raised from time to time and gets refused on safety grounds, but please, these are supposed to be the best of the best racing drivers on the planet. If they can't change manual gears safely, perhaps they should return to karting!

I agree that making the cars 'harder' to drive has the opportunity to increase the spectacle.

However, if F1 is trying to place themselves as 'high tech', as well as a place for automotive research to take place, then using 'low tech' solutions makes it awkward. 

In the 'old' days teams were always trying out new things, and it made the cars unreliable.  Now the cars have to use engines that last for months, and are punished if they are unreliable, so of course the reliability is up, and the incidence of problems coming up go down.  The cars aren't unpredictable, and the drivers have a million of hours in the simulators.  All in the interest of saving money.

Let the engineers tinker, let the drivers not know what their car can do until practice, and we'll see more mistakes happen.
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: rmassart on June 27, 2019, 03:59:42 PM
However, if F1 is trying to place themselves as 'high tech', as well as a place for automotive research to take place, then using 'low tech' solutions makes it awkward. 

Yes, but I am not sure switching gears using paddles on the steering wheel is high tech anymore. It might have been 20 years ago, but now most automatics from your local dealer will have that technology.

However it does raise the more fundamental question of driver aids. For me they should all be removed. They are not really relevant anymore to your average road car and they reduce the dependency on the driver. I know this is what the teams want, but it is not what the sport should be about.

I am not even sure how much of these electronics are even relevant to road cars who's future looks more like a mix between an Uber and a Tesla than your average BMW stuck in traffic on the M25!

If we removed all telemetry, all communications except using pit boards, removed engine modes, simplify the whole steering wheel back down to what it should be: a wheel to steer the car, it would put the onus on the driver. Leave them to race alone with no real time communication to the team. I also think removing all this will save millions in development costs...

I want to see drivers physically wrestle with the car like they used up until the 90s. They will make errors and this will lead to better racing. When I watch some of Senna's onboard cameras around Monaco, he's practically driving permanently with one hand on the gear stick. It's a completely different level of effort that is required in this case.
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: cosworth151 on June 27, 2019, 04:27:57 PM
Quote from: rmassart
If we removed all telemetry, all communications except using pit boards, removed engine modes, simplify the whole steering wheel back down to what it should be: a wheel to steer the car, it would put the onus on the driver. Leave them to race alone with no real time communication to the team. I also think removing all this will save millions in development costs...

That sounds like Formula Vee.

Formula 1 needs high tech. It needs to be cutting edge. It just needs drama, more of the unexpected. It needs to open it up to more experimentation by the teams & fewer punishments for when they go kerblamo. They need to open the sport up to more variation in the cars, including the engines.
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: rmassart on June 27, 2019, 08:39:45 PM
I agree F1 needs high tech, but not at the expense of the driver's skill. Because the real high tech nowadays is in replacing the driver completely. And I'm sure we don't want to see robots racing at Spa!
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: Jericoke on June 28, 2019, 01:39:56 PM
I agree F1 needs high tech, but not at the expense of the driver's skill. Because the real high tech nowadays is in replacing the driver completely. And I'm sure we don't want to see robots racing at Spa!

While I agree that the drivers are the 'stars' of F1, and driverless cars would be a disaster for the sport as a whole... I would LOVE to see a series with F1 sized budgets fielding self driving cars.

(As an aside... if F1 was decided by the driver making the least mistakes instead of the driver with the best car... does anyone doubt that it would still be Hamilton on top by a mile?  There is no one putting in 'flawless laps' like Lewis, or responding to pressure like Lewis)
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: Alianora La Canta on June 28, 2019, 01:58:00 PM
"What's wrong with F1"?

Permission to start the list with: "Series appears to have no idea what it is or wishes to be?"

If we had one stakeholder - just one - with clarity on these questions and the determination to make their actions consistent with the same, F1 would be in a stronger position. Bernie did that, much as I loathed the answers to the questions he proposed.

Most of the F1 drivers have and had that clarity, but not since the 1970s have they been stakeholders for the purposes of something so big as the series' destiny.

The team bosses seem to have trouble squaring their own desires with those of their ultimate bosses, who themselves have trouble squaring the (different) desires of their own departments and their shareholders.

The FIA cannot make its mind up whether F1 is a sport, a marketing arm for Jean Todt's political ambitions, a bureaucrat's playground, a toy for Liberty or an income stream, and it shows.

Liberty claims it wants F1 as a business, but it's not running it like any form of successful business I recognise, partly because of the above. And its contract with the FIA, which only the FIA can revoke, is enough to prevent it taking the franchise route Jeri proposes (which, if nothing else, would lend that clarity of action to Liberty's ambitions). Thanks to EU intervention, the rights to F1 have to stay with the FIA, and the FIA isn't allowed to make commercial decisions in F1. If it was sold to Liberty in an attempt to get round this, the EU would probably require an independent entity to regulate the whole thing, which would do nothing to solve the problem (because having a governor do what Liberty tells it all the time wouldn't meet the EU's requirements for independence - the situation F1 has now is technically too close already, and it is only the complexity and timeframe involved in legal cases that prevents the whole thing from crashing down).

Until F1 knows what it is to be, it can't possibly give coherent answers to anything else about what is wrong with it. (I know we think it should be a sport, but I'm not sure this site is big enough for me to list what is wrong with F1 if we assume that should be its purpose, and if that's not its purpose, most of it would be irrelevant).
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: rmassart on June 28, 2019, 02:26:53 PM
(As an aside... if F1 was decided by the driver making the least mistakes instead of the driver with the best car... does anyone doubt that it would still be Hamilton on top by a mile?  There is no one putting in 'flawless laps' like Lewis, or responding to pressure like Lewis)

Fully agree with this. Lewis is truly a head above the rest at the moment and perhaps the only thing wrong with F1 at the moment is him! We might get some exciting races again once he retires!
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: Irisado on June 29, 2019, 11:42:41 AM
The races are not boring because Lewis Hamilton is winning the majority of them.  The races are boring because nothing happens throughout the field in any of them.

What is wrong with Formula 1?  Almost every aspect of it is fundamentally flawed, except the qualifying process, but I will focus on why it used to be so much better, where it has gone wrong, and why the current rules exacerbate all the poor decisions that have been taken.

1995-2002: When Formula 1 Was Formula 1

The very first Formula 1 race that I watched was the 1994 Italian Grand Prix, but the first season that I watched was the 1995 season.  Formula 1's rules were largely unchanged, aside from qualifying being consolidated into a single hour on Saturday, rather than across two days, as had been the norm prior to 1996, during this period.  This was the era of the warm-up, tinkering with the cars right up until the last minute, and a high attrition rate at quite a few of the races.

For me, this was the most exciting period of Formula 1 that I have ever watched.  There were still boring and processional races some of the time and overtaking was too difficult, but this period was characterised by many more driver mistakes, more collisions, closer wheel-to-wheel racing, even if overtaking was less frequent, higher unreliability, and, crucially, drivers pushing hard on every lap of the race. This last point, in particular, was why Formula 1 was so captivating.  All the drivers had to go flat out for the entire race.  This is why more mistakes were made and partly why the cars were more unreliable.  Both the drivers and the cars were pushed to the limit and this generated its own excitement, even in otherwise dull races.  Reliability issues also meant that a dominant car/driver would not always win the race (e.g. Hakkinen and McLaren in 1999).  Higher attrition also allowed the smaller teams to score more regularly.

This was also the era where all of these penalties that they dish out these days were rarely applied.  The rules were different, of course, but there was a lot less sanctioning of drivers.  Related to this point, the circuits were such that if you exceeded the track limits as a driver you either sailed across uneven grass or bounced through a gravel trap.  Either way, exceeding the track limits would not be advantageous, so drivers did not do it and penalties, such as those we have seen applied so often in the last few years, were never even considered, let alone applied.

The circuits during this period were safe.  There were no serious injuries or accidents during this period.  Panis broke his legs after an accident at the Canadian Grand Prix in 1997, Schumacher broke his leg at Silverstone in 1999, but that was largely his own fault, while Zonta suffered a foot injury at the Brazilian Grand Prix in the same year after quite a nasty accident there.  These were all unusual accidents though and they were rare.  The safety standards were very high and the need to sanitise the circuits was zero.  I will never understand why the governing body decided to remove gravel traps and I will never agree with the decision.

The tyre wars of 1997-1998 and 2001-2002 during this period also enhanced the racing.  It resulted in some major surprises too, at times, notably when Damon Hill almost won the Hungarian Grand Prix in 1997 driving the Arrows-Yamaha.  It also allowed some of the midfield teams to perform giant-killing acts and score points on a more regular basis if their tyre supplier had the upper hand that weekend.  This further increased the unpredictability of the races.  Also, the tyres were proper tyres, not the shoddy rubbish that Pirelli is required to produce under the current rules, but I will come to this problem in due course.

2003-2009: When Formula 1 Started to Lose Its Way, but Still Had Its Moments

The changes to cut costs that were introduced in 2003 were needed, but the actual changes that were introduced did not work.  The one engine rule, which became increasingly restrictive over time, in particular, has not improved the quality of the racing.  It led to the introduction of the stupid grid penalty system for engine changes and encouraged teams to run less on the track, in order to conserve engines.  The idea was that smaller teams would be able to compete more easily because of cheaper costs.  It did not work.  Also, a number of the changes were essentially knee-jerk reactions to Ferrari's 2002 dominance.  These were ill-conceived and did not work either.  The 2005 no tyre changes rule, for example, did stop Ferrari from winning, but it forced drivers to conserve their tyres and reduce that 'flat out' style of racing that I referred to before.  While less problematic than the racing that we have now, it should have sent a message that driving slowly to conserve tyres and car parts is not appropriate for Formula 1.

2006, 2007, and 2008 were all dramatic seasons in terms of the battle for the world championship, but they were also the beginning of the cars becoming too reliable, especially in 2008 and yet more restrictions on gearboxes and engines.  Small independent teams were not able to compete at all during this 2003-2009 period.  Eddie Jordan sold his team to Midland at the end of 2004.  Midland became Spyker towards the end of 2006, before becoming Force India at the start of 2008.  Peter Sauber sold his team to BMW at the end of 2005.  Minardi became the Red Bull B team at the of 2005.  Subsequent independents were nothing of the sort.  Toro Rosso is a Red Bull B team, while Super Aguri was Honda's B team until Honda decided that it no longer wanted to pay to run it.  This was not making the sport more accessible to smaller teams.

The final stages of this period were also seeing the excessive sanitisation of the circuits and Ecclestone's greed driving the move to far flung circuits in countries with no motor racing tradition.  The new circuits which came to be part of the calendar during this period were generally lacklustre and did not produce interesting races.

Finally, restricting the sport to just a single tyre supplier from 2007 was another mistake made in the name of cost cutting.  It was a variable which made the races more unpredictable and it was no longer part of the sport.  This change also did not see life get any better for the small teams.

2010-2013: The Slow Demise of Formula 1

There were still some good races during this period, but the changes introduced when Pirelli took over the tyre supplier role in 2011 were a mistake.  Yes, in 2012, the tyres led to multiple different winners in the opening half of the season, but this was a drop in the ocean.  DRS was also introduced in 2011.  This is singularly the worst decision ever made about Formula 1 car design.  This kind of gimmick is totally unsuitable for Formula  1 and made overtaking, especially in conjunction with tyres that disintegrate, has made overtaking far too easy and eliminated the skill of the driver to stop another passing with good defensive racing skills.  This is unacceptable, in my view, and totally ruined wheel-to-wheel racing.  I would rather watch no overtaking than false overtaking.  If I count up the number of times that I have heard the phrase 'an easy DRS pass' since 2011, it would be a lot.

The new independent teams were unable to compete because the promised budget cap never materialised, the circuits became increasingly sanitised, and the races even more predictable because nearly all the cars were finishing the vast majority of the races.  Further rule changes, following the tragic death of Jules Bianchi, went in the wrong direction, as I will come onto, and the entire Formula 1 weekend was becoming one of conserving parts and tyres.  This was the beginning of endurance racing in Formula 1 not Formula 1 racing.

2014-present: Dull, Lifeless, and False racing

All of the problems above have been exacerbated by the introduction of turbo engines.  Eddie Cheever said in 1986 when Formula 1 had last tried to use turbo engines exclusively that it would become an endurance sport, rather than a flat out racing sprint.  While I initially thought turbos would be good because they would at least be unreliable and result in more unpredictable races, this was only the case for the first few races of 2014.  After that the races became even more sterile and predictable than during the previous period.

Even worse, this period finally saw all of the small independent teams collapse and the once mighty McLaren and Williams reduced to bit-part players.  The sport is now dominated by manufacturers and their B teams.  There are only 20 cars and ten teams (in effect six once you take out the B teams), despite all the cost-cutting rules, and the circuits are so sanitised that there is almost no chance that a driver can ever retire as a result of going off the track.  In addition, whenever there is the slightest incident now, they call for a virtual safety car or the safety car.  This is ridiculous.  If they are going to persist with these totally unnecessary virtual safety car periods, they may as well adopt Indycar caution period rules.  Again, this is not Formula 1 and is a knee-jerk reaction to Bianchi's death.  Bianchi died because his car collided with a tractor.  Yet, now, whenever a car pulls to the side of the track well out of harm's way, they implement the virtual safety car.  Why?  It is not necessary and breaks up the flow of the race.

Liberty Media has made everything even worse.  The gimmicky graphics, the computer game style sounds, music, and start countdown are all awful.  I feel as though I am watching someone play a Formula 1 computer game.  This is also completely wrong.

The tyre situation gets worse every year, reliability is now so absurdly high, and drivers just cruise around the circuit saving engines and tyres.  They then use their DRS and fresh tyres to sail past cars on old worn out tyres without DRS.  How is this racing?  How does this generate excitement?  It does not.  It is false racing and is absolute rubbish.  2019 is the worst year of Formula 1 that I have ever seen and I see no way of it getting any better unless or until the rules are drastically changed the circuits are reverted to their previous state in terms of gravel traps.  Formula 1 has totally lost its way.  The drivers should be flat out for every lap of the race, the circuits should damage their cars if they go off and they should have the chance of getting stuck in gravel, the rules restricting engine and gearbox parts and the associated penalty system should be eliminated, the budget cap should be implemented, manufacturers owning/running more than one team should be banned, independent teams should receive more prize money and help with start-up costs, and finally DRS should be banned immediately.

I am so angry about the current state of Formula 1 that I don't know what to do about it.  All I know is that I want someone who runs the sport to read this post, and everyone else's in this topic, and actually do something about it.  On this forum, there is extensive collective experience of Formula 1 and it would be nice if someone in authority would actually listen, but I already know that they will not.
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: Warmwater on June 30, 2019, 02:37:54 AM
 |-(
In my opinion just random thoughts in no particular order:

The whole circus is overly mature and overly regulated.
If striving toward a highly technical advanced series, why so many rules?
The development of the current power-trains has pretty much reached the end.
Even Honda's engines are competitive now.
Why are engines limited to V-6's, more variety would be nice.
Piston engines are noisy dinosaurs, and hybrids are also on the way out.
Any alternate power units and fuels that can be tested- Wankle/hydrogen??
In season testing on Thursday's would be interesting, using a spare car.
Freezing development during the season prevents slower teams from catching up.   
Except for the paint schemes and advertising signs, the cars all look identical.
Other than Williams, all of the engineers must be copying each other's plans.
The differences in lap times between cars are often tiny fractions of a second.
The speed similarities are a result of overly strict measurement regulations.
Tires have too much influence on the results of most races.
The rubber marbles ultimately restrict the racing lines to a single lane.
Why not just one tire compound for everyone, a hard type to eliminate marbles?
Mandatory pit stops should be eliminated. Or instead, add a mandatory lunch stop.
Thinking about reducing costs is a waste of time.
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: John S on July 01, 2019, 09:42:38 AM
If you want the drivers to wrestle more with the cars on track take away power steering - Simples!!!  :D
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: rmassart on July 01, 2019, 10:38:18 AM
Q: How to make the racing exciting again?

A: Simply remove Hamilton from the equation. Give him a dodgy wing, or an overheating engine (or both) and all of a sudden the races are exciting again! ;)
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: lkjohnson1950 on July 08, 2019, 06:11:21 AM
How about F1 Ironman?

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/107346/the-french-grand-prix-could-mark-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-formula-1 (https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/107346/the-french-grand-prix-could-mark-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-formula-1)
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: monty on July 08, 2019, 03:08:08 PM
It is obvious (and understandable) that they will not go for 'revolution' but they could go for more radical 'evolution'.
I think the cars could be improved by reducing front wing size and removing barge boards - less turbulence = easier following = better overtaking.
The tracks cannot be changed easily but more should be fitted with 'track limit sensors' like the Jonathon Palmer tracks which would reduce the need for intervention from the stewards
The biggest controversy of 2019 (cars being forced off the track / cars leaving the track and gaining an advantage) can easily be fixed by simple, consistent and draconian application of the existing rules (you cannot leave the track and gain and advantage; you cannot 'crowd' another car off the track) but the penalty is that you must give the position(s) back within one lap.

For the future;
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: rmassart on July 08, 2019, 05:33:52 PM
For the last two points, I don't really agree. I don't like the idea of the safety car at all. Not because it's not needed, but because it has the ability to create artificial action. If the lead driver has a 20 second gap behind him and this reduced to zero due to a safety car, it's fake. We might as well just have three 20 lap sprint races instead.  This is also the reason I don't like all these rules on tire choices, forced pit stops and so on. I don't want races decided by a strategician in the pits. It needs to be the driver who wins the race on track, not due to a cleverly timed pit stop.

It's why I would like to see telemetry be fundamentally forbidden.  The driver should be left to his own devices when racing, except for some communication once a lap with boards on the pit straight. As it was back in the good old days :)

I agree on the prize money aspect and in fact I don't understand why certain teams get historical funding. And why one of them is Red Bull. They're still a new team as far as I am concerned. How long have they existed for? 15 years?  They're still in their nappies and behave like it sometimes.   :D

Neither do I agree that Ferrari deserve a bonus. I will gladly watch F1 without them if need be and if it improves the racing. I've never understood the obsession with Ferrari (well I understand it but I don't agree with it).  Take away the Schumacher years and Kimi's win because Hamilton couldn't enter the wet pit properly in his rookie year and their last dominance was when? In the late 70s?
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: monty on July 09, 2019, 01:21:26 PM
First may I apologise for the odd bullet points - I obviously failed to master the technicalities of making a consistent bulleted list!

Clearly there is no right or wrong opinion which is exactly why there is no 'silver bullet' to fix F1.

However, there seems to be enough agreement amongst us fans to adopt a few changes that we all agree would improve the racing from a spectator point of view. I do not know what Liberty use as 'goals' but they don't seem to care about the spectators!
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: rmassart on July 10, 2019, 05:55:46 AM
However, there seems to be enough agreement amongst us fans to adopt a few changes that we all agree would improve the racing from a spectator point of view. I do not know what Liberty use as 'goals' but they don't seem to care about the spectators!

I think they are trying to turn F1 into a sport that can be consumed bite size through social media.  And they are doing quite well at this. They have lots of highlights on their website which I actually think are quite good. If I miss a race I can watch the 6 minute summary plus a few "all the angles" videos for key situations such as Leclerc and Verstappen.  No need to watch the thing live anymore, let alone attend a race... Back in the 80s when I started following F1 if you didn't watch the race live (on TV or in person) you wouldn't really get to see the action any other way. Nowadays, you just turn on your smartphone and in 5 minutes you are as well informed as the person who spent 2 hours watching.

And of course, that is the problem. For them having fans attend a race is kind of optional. It's not based on attendance figures that sponsors pay their fees.  It's more based on likes and shares on Instagram or Facebook. I think this is a mistake and will kill the sport. I am not a fan of most US sports which are interrupted all the time and then give you 10 seconds of excitement before another break for the adverts.  But it's great for TV advertising.  I can't help feeling F1 is going in that direction.
Title: Re: What's wrong with F1
Post by: Alianora La Canta on July 11, 2019, 06:38:32 AM
However, there seems to be enough agreement amongst us fans to adopt a few changes that we all agree would improve the racing from a spectator point of view. I do not know what Liberty use as 'goals' but they don't seem to care about the spectators!

I think they are trying to turn F1 into a sport that can be consumed bite size through social media.  And they are doing quite well at this. They have lots of highlights on their website which I actually think are quite good. If I miss a race I can watch the 6 minute summary plus a few "all the angles" videos for key situations such as Leclerc and Verstappen.  No need to watch the thing live anymore, let alone attend a race... Back in the 80s when I started following F1 if you didn't watch the race live (on TV or in person) you wouldn't really get to see the action any other way. Nowadays, you just turn on your smartphone and in 5 minutes you are as well informed as the person who spent 2 hours watching.

And of course, that is the problem. For them having fans attend a race is kind of optional. It's not based on attendance figures that sponsors pay their fees.  It's more based on likes and shares on Instagram or Facebook. I think this is a mistake and will kill the sport. I am not a fan of most US sports which are interrupted all the time and then give you 10 seconds of excitement before another break for the adverts.  But it's great for TV advertising.  I can't help feeling F1 is going in that direction.

I think Liberty expects to have the sport paid for by its homebrew TV app. Something tells me this will not work either, though it will take a few years for this to become clear.