New F1 Era- Is It
Posted Feb 02 2017 - 05:37 PM
With Liberty Media Group,Chase Carey (New F1 Chairman)and Ross Brawn,entering the ring,are we in for the true motorsport,that we have always yearned for.
With Mr Ecclestone, now demoted to an advisory role,will we have organisers that will think clearly and out of the box,to improve F1's future. To make it interesting,exciting,competitive and edge of the seat stuff.
I myself am optimistic and also realize that any improvement will take time and effort to move onwards and hopefully upwards to a better spectacle?
I myself, am glad Bernie's power as been downgraded,even though his advice will still be valuable and needed.But moving to hopefully a refreshing and revitalized sport,could be something exciting and worth waiting for.
What do we think about the change of ownership and the days ahead? Do we need that fresh thinking,out of the box or even going back to old F1 values,such as returning to more traditional F1 venues. Such as France,Netherlands and South Africa. Get rid of the corporate jewelry jangling fans,for the true motorsport fans of yesteryear.Bring back real racing and the ambience of F1,as we used to have in places like Imola.
I am very much looking forward to all of this and of course the new season. Testing is due soon,with the newly designed cars and hopeful teams,who are busily planning their actions of attack.Except of course Manor,who looks like they will(If not already)go by the wayside.Maybe that sort of mishap, can be addressed by the new ownership,so this sort of issue,never occurs easily again. We know it's been a re curing theme the past few years,but come on,it as to stop. Along with this making more teams competitive and removing the astronomical costs of operation and setup,in F1.
Maybe some of you here,don't care and have lost all interest in modern F1. But surely some of you still care as I do. Comments,more than welcome and greatly appreciated!
Thanks for reading 😃
Posted Feb 03 2017 - 12:42 AM
As always though, I look forward to the new season and hope that there for the first time since 2012 won't be a single dominant team.
Posted Feb 03 2017 - 07:28 AM
I never agreed with the use of drs, and its negative use by leaders,while not only overtaking but using it as an aid to get past back markers.
I would like to see middle of the pack and teams at the back,have more to aim for. After all points make prizes. In this case money for investment from potential sponsors. Maybe some points incentive based system,for lower teams?
I would also like to see maybe a return to points for the fastest lap. Maybe awards by points? for best young driver,best team of the day who are outside of the points.
I am just thinking out loud here and maybe un-feasible? I would just like more teams to not only be competitive, but able to build their team into a top F1 outfit and to be up there in years to come. A little like the philosophy of the NFL draft,which gives Franchises,after a bad season,the chance to rebuild from the draft,as well as free agency.
Edited by twinpotter, Feb 03 2017 - 07:51 AM.
Posted Feb 03 2017 - 09:46 AM
Surely its a whole new world in that respect.
It will require reverse engineering income and expense from the bottom line up to gross sales.
If that doesn't work nothing much else will help.
So, big hope Formula One doesn't go belly up.
Guessing it will go public.
Keeping Formula One the pinnacle of auto racing requires it demonstrate its entitlement to the claim.
This means costs will always increase, as it is always high risk research and development on the cutting edge of racing technology.
If not, its not F1.
So the hypothetical paradox is the question of how to make it more affordable, and increase the number of teams and fans, when it is the nature of the sport that costs will always increase with innovation, and will be higher than any other form of racing, if F1 is to maintain its status.
This is the same old song.
F1 can't be made better by arbitrarily lowering costs.
Innovation lowers costs, but not for the innovators.
New money has to come from marketing and more fans. Guessing that has to be the plan. Otherwise it has to come from entries and venues, which as we see means less not more.
One thing maybe would be to spec different cars for different tracks, such as long track, short track, the Ring, Indy...
That would greatly expand the tracks that could qualify as F1 venues.
That might offer advantages to smaller teams that could concentrate on specific tracks thru a season.
F1 Rally Car?
Hope they are very successful. Hope the schedule expands to include more venues. And hope we all get fair value and beyond.
BE got it all this far very successfully. It has survived and prospered against pretty substantial odds.
F1 is still the pinnacle, still global, international, and hopefully will continue to push things beyond the limits.
Looking forward to the first race of 2017.
Good ideas TP. For sure agree DRS is silly and never was a good idea.
Edited by John Woods, Feb 03 2017 - 12:00 PM.
Posted Feb 03 2017 - 11:26 AM
Another idea to note down the group of drivers,who drop out in Q1 & Q2 and whoever gets the fastest lap in the race,out of those groups,gets 1pt. You may have to up- adjust the top ten finishing pts score,to line up fairly with that rule. Or even keep the present points allocation,or even lower it by 1? So other teams can close the gap.
I know this can create sub divisions,in the race,but haven't we got that already. It just gives the middle to lower teams,some incentive and something to race/aim for.
This would of course have to be fool proof,watertight,feasible and fair,to avoid,especially,negative consequences !
Edited by twinpotter, Feb 03 2017 - 11:40 AM.
Posted Feb 03 2017 - 02:43 PM
Points for fastest qualifying..
I'm looking forward to the new season, but no more than any other, plus the indycar series as it evolves back to something of a premier class again.
Posted Feb 03 2017 - 05:37 PM
I read recently that IndyCar was going back to getting the majority of the downforce from the undertray in their next generation car to lessen the problem with turbulence and improve racing. Maybe something for F1 to consider.
Edited by dbell84, Feb 03 2017 - 05:37 PM.
Posted Feb 03 2017 - 06:45 PM
Posted Feb 04 2017 - 07:42 AM
So no surprise there is not a lot of passing in a race.
Posted Feb 04 2017 - 11:14 AM
^ This. There's definitely more passing now in F1 than there was before the introduction of DRS. I would hate for F1 to go back to the bad old days of races just being a procession, with no action at all. I can remember many races like that in the past.
And twinpotter, I can't believe that you think that using DRS to get past back-markers is a bad thing? Do you really want race leaders to get stuck behind drivers who may be 1 - 2 seconds a lap slower than they are? That's daft. Even today with DRS, some slower drivers ignore blue flags and have to be given penalties because of their lack of co-operation. Do you want those twits to have even more impact on the results of a race? That would be crazy.
I'm a bit concerned about some of the comments I've been hearing that the new F1 people may be considering having several events in the US each year. How would that work? How would that fit in with the historic and traditional idea that each country has their own showcase F1 Grand Prix? I hope it doesn't mean that F1 becomes US-centric, dominated purely by the interests of US TV companies. I hope that commercial and profit motives won't destroy the F1 that we've come to love over decades.
(Edit: I know some countries had more than one GP in the past. US GP East & West for example, and Italy with the Italian GP and the "San Marino" GP. Where a country is large, or where the fans (such as the Tifosi) are especially crazy about cars, I think two GPs is acceptable. But to have "several" as has been reported recently is questionable.)
Edited by Saiph, Feb 04 2017 - 12:22 PM.
Posted Feb 04 2017 - 11:43 AM
Definitely should not be centric anywhere.
But, how does a leader get stuck behind? Somehow that makes no sense.
If they are leading, how are they behind?
What is more annoying is when leaders compete and the one behind will surely pass the one in front only because the back car uses DRS.
Just wanting more passing is sort of like saying you want more sugar in a very fine dry wine.
Posted Feb 04 2017 - 12:07 PM
And I understand what you mean when two cars are fighting over the lead of a race. You could have a situation where the second-placed car always overtook the leader on the main straight simply due to DRS. They could swap backwards and forwards every lap, not due to any difference in driver skill or car quality, but purely because of DRS. That would be a bit silly.
I think the DRS system should be adjusted (limited) in some way so that it only compensates for the aerodynamic disadvantage of being close behind another car, and doesn't give the second-placed car the massive advantage that it seems to create at the moment. I'm not sure how the FIA could measure the various effects and make sure that it works fairly, but they're smart people and they've had other difficult technical challenges to overcome in the past, so maybe they could find a way to do it.
Posted Feb 04 2017 - 12:34 PM
Maybe stiffer penalties for doing that?
Like really stiff.
Even with illegal blocking the leaders are still in the lead, but it is unfortunate for them when back markers acting like idiots allow the leader to be caught up and maybe eventually passed.
Isn't that really part of the drama and story of that race?
Adjusting DRS seems sort of still artificial, but I understand why if there were no other option.
Wireless proximity draft simulation routine could ping cars and apply effects to each car?
Edited by John Woods, Feb 04 2017 - 12:43 PM.
Posted Feb 04 2017 - 01:34 PM
I respect and understand your comment on leaders getting stuck behind backmarkers and it is something that we,as motorsport fans,do not want. I realised when I made that statement,after,that someone would come up with the holding up of leaders.In other words I shot myself in the foot. But I think the answer is in your reply and that backmarkers should be more aware and focused,ready to move over,when leaders are behind. If not then more serious penalties,for an hold up infringement block and refusing to move,should be handed out.
But overall I still stand by the fact that Drs ,if it stays,should not be used by a leader on a back marker,but only two cars that are battling for a position around their present race position. I think it is a negative and an unfair advantage that a so called leader can use this aid on a back marker.Especially when battling with other leaders. I always have and always will. To solve this issue is for the back marker to move over.Period,or face the consequences. Simply the leader is gaining advantage of someone who is not in the race and getting the first bite of the cherry !
Overall I think it is up to the driver to get past the car in front,by their own means. Regardless whether they are in front by position or a backmarker and by not using any aids. I feel this is again another unwanted complicated aid devised by F1 with negative results and actions.
F1 as created a rod for its own back with Drs. With the driver unable to show his true ability and skill. Without though,overtaking is possibly difficult. Something that F1 need to look at through design. Something that hopefully the new regime can look at?
Edited by twinpotter, Feb 04 2017 - 03:01 PM.
Posted Feb 04 2017 - 01:44 PM
Only an ogre would suggest F1 is too safe but danger is what created the aura around the sport. I would never have the balls to race the real Spa67. I think I might have the balls if not the skill to have a go in a modern car on a modern track with all the attendant safety features. I can't remember if it was Brundel or Brundle who tried one of Fangio's Mercedes. He noted that when he racred it was always in the back of his mind he could get hurt, but he reckoned the thought of being hurt would locate elsewhere in his mind in the old days.
Over time producers of raw or edgy products tame them down to appeal to a broader market. People were attracted to auto racing to see immortal drivers do the impossible. Race promoters instituted measures to try to prevent blood on race days while still selling the bygone aura of danger. For example few people spectate sim racing.
Unfortunately a lot of the safety measures also reduce skills displayed by the drivers. IMHO some of the most exciting cars to watch (on TV) are sprint cars(USA) Sprint cars have enormous power (600-900 hp?) and short wheel bases. The short wheel bases make them unstable, and even when racing alone, they look a handful. When I watched F1 in the late 80's and early 90's a lot of the backmarkers would have spinouts. Sometimes a front runner would spin out too. There was almost always 1 or 2 spins a race. I don't think there are very many spins anymore, and I think its due to elongated wheelbases. I believe the elongated wheelbases were sold as ensuring the driver's feet were behind the front axle (if ithey had front axles).
The down force on the cars is so extreme that anything other than a hairpin is practically flat out, hence the Tilke-dromes. F1 does not want the drivers cornering at too high a speed. You can see this difference in race sims, say GPL vs any sim of modern F1. This may not matter to others but I dislike the aesthetics of the modern tracks.
IMHO the current cars get uglier and uglier. Modern aerodynamics are not intuitive so the appearance makes no sense. The T1G looked streamlined allowing to pretend they understood the design of the cars. While I eventually warmed up to the 70 era cars (so ugly you eventually adopt them) I just can't warm up to today's elongated things.
Another problem with F1 is it tries to hold both a driver's championship and a constructor's championship at the same time. Many say they follow F1 for the technology, but the various forums mostly discuss the drivers. (Probably because the cars are largely about aerodynamics and without a degree in aerodynamics the cars make no sense.) The problem for the driver's championship is that it is largely determined by which car you drive. I don't think this model can continue to sell. My daughter and her peers have 0 interest in cars. Within a few years self driving cars will appear and I predict for the coming generations race car technology will hold the same mystery as that of riding crop technology for race horses. I would think that for racing to be of wide interest it needs a human element. Would you pay on a regular basis to see drones race. (That technology probably could be implemented now.)
I am not of course proposing that racing be made purposely dangerous. There are both moral and legal reasons against dangerous auto racing. The time for danger has passed. (I used to have a magazine with a photo of a young child sitting on a hay bale at the edge of the Monza track within feet of Fangio doing about 150.
Well anyway the above is only my ill informed opinion and is offered only in the hope to stimulate discussion
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users