Boring-Gate

[AleHop 0]

Not to add necessarily (electronics), but the abandon of the KERS system also reduces the passing at start,... and during the race, some were getting the extra little push with it. It was giving us more passing.

I agree but last year only McLaren and Ferrari were effectively using KERS throughout the season. Once all the teams had it the difference would be minimal. KERS could be a good gadget for the future but I wouldn't bring it back for next season.

[Rainmaster 7]

One thought that struck me while watching the race: the probles with regulations, despite how good or bad each one is per se, is the fact that they throw a bunch of rules at once, without considering how they interact with each other. And most of them cancel each other out, so you end up having the same old Sh#t, under a different name.

Example:

- New points system will make drivers push harder (let's assume it's true, though I always thought that was an idiotic assumption to start with)

Gets cancelled with:

- Limited number of engines. Drivers need to save the engine because, as usual, to finish first you must first finish, so it pays better to preserve the engine and make 22nd places than risk your engine for a 1st place and a DNF next race.

Ditto for no refuelling vs limited tire strategies...etc, etc.

Yep. The FIA/Teams need to step back and reconsider everything, the whole picture. Maybe they should discuss a clean set of regulations both sporting and technical, to be effective from a set time for a set period of time. Obviously, easier said than done getting everyone to agree and obey Nice thought though.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Well, what a festering pile of wank that race was....

And I don't agree with those who said the old racing was boring - F1 managed for decades without refuelling. Agreed the late Schui era got boring but only because the Fezzas and Schui were so far ahead.

The problem I think is you have several issues: which conflict for exciting racing and overtaking:

- Preservation of tyres

- Preservation of engines for cost-savings

- Pretty much standard "spec" cars

- Engineered-in reliability

- Culture of banning anything new/innovative

Back in the 70s/80s, it was not unusual for cars to drop out with engine blow-outs. Cars would arrive with interesting technical "tweaks" which gave them a leg-up - these were not always banned straight away. Innovations were not always reliable. This mixed the field up a bit.

Contrary to other posters I believe you can squarely blame FIA for much of this - too many rules; too many constraints. They may as well issue standard spec cars and give the teams free rein to do what they want with them to go faster. Not my preferred choice as I am with DOF on having more electronics, but better than the Sunday bore-fest.

[mikathegreat2 2]

No overtaking takes away the spirit of motorsport cos that's what most people know motorsport as,all about overtaking, & crashing! Watching the race yesterday I thought "is this what racing is gonna become, all about qualifying & hoping the car doesn't disintegrate?" I sure hope not & hope that Melbourne will be a much better race!

[DOF_power 0]

Well is far better than the 2000-2004 seasons when you didn´t need to turn on the tv for the 5 last laps...

2000 and 2003 were good seasons. 2003 actually had the most passing in recent history.

[DOF_power 0]

Why the f*** is it so hard, scrap the diffusers and crazy wings and venturis for most of the downforce. It worked for CART just fine.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

No I have the perfect plan guaranteed to liven up the race.

Pre-race Charlie Whiting slips laxative into random driver water bottles and they're not allowed to come into the pits unless they overtake someone

You can bet you'd see some racing then.....

[Autumnpuma 0]

A little perspective. The big problem is the massive gap between cars. Nobody is close enough to justify burning a bit of rubber to take a position. There is nothing inherently wrong with the current rules package except that it's new. The past few seasons saw relatively little rule changes and that helped the whole grid 'catch up' to the sharp end, producing close lap times and exciting racing (comparatively speaking).

This sort of yawnfest will go away as the teams start to improve throughout the season and if Todt can keep the rules from changing too much, we'll see some excitement yet.

[JHS 1]

Why the f*** is it so hard, scrap the diffusers and crazy wings and venturis for most of the downforce. It worked for CART just fine.

Noticed 'worked'. Now notice where CART is now. CART was a spec series too. F1? F1 is different. Personally, I don't want overtaking ten-a-penny like in NASCAR where it's pretty much assured that the guy on pole probably won't win. F1 is different. It is about the most difficult cars to drive with breathtaking overtakes like Fernando around the outside of Schuey at Suzuka '05. If there was loads of overtaking people would be moaning as they are now saying it's too easy to overtake and F1 should be different. Come on, give it time. It's not like there was zero overtaking at all. Did the cars finish in the same order they qualified? No. Was there overtaking? Yes. Were they at a crap track? Yes.

And if you think it's THAT BAD, well, just don't watch it. Can't be good for your health in your old age getting your knickers in a twist about a sport.

[DOF_power 0]

A little perspective. The big problem is the massive gap between cars. Nobody is close enough to justify burning a bit of rubber to take a position. There is nothing inherently wrong with the current rules package except that it's new. The past few seasons saw relatively little rule changes and that helped the whole grid 'catch up' to the sharp end, producing close lap times and exciting racing (comparatively speaking).

This sort of yawnfest will go away as the teams start to improve throughout the season and if Todt can keep the rules from changing too much, we'll see some excitement yet.

Gaps ?!

The gaps weren't the problems, the trains were.

Hamilton complained about being stuck behind Rosberg, ditto Webber, ditto Alonso and Massa.

If they wouldn't back up the they'd cook the tires and overheat the engines.

"Wow! New rules, not sure huh? Why do they keep d#cking with it? Followed Mercedes power for the whole race, no chance to overtake - again" - Mark Webber.

Now we have aero push coming his twin aero cook.

But after ban on electronics this was expected, as it's always the car behind/in dirty air that gets ****ed up the most (by the rule changes).

[JHS 1]

"Wow! New rules, not sure huh? Why do they keep d#cking with it? Followed Mercedes power for the whole race, no chance to overtake - again" - Mark Webber.

Easy to answer the why do they keep "d#cking" with it. Because the fans keep bl00dy moaning year on year!

[DOF_power 0]

Noticed 'worked'. Now notice where CART is now. CART was a spec series too. F1? F1 is different. Personally, I don't want overtaking ten-a-penny like in NASCAR where it's pretty much assured that the guy on pole probably won't win. F1 is different. It is about the most difficult cars to drive with breathtaking overtakes like Fernando around the outside of Schuey at Suzuka '05. If there was loads of overtaking people would be moaning as they are now saying it's too easy to overtake and F1 should be different. Come on, give it time. It's not like there was zero overtaking at all. Did the cars finish in the same order they qualified? No. Was there overtaking? Yes. Were they at a crap track? Yes.

And if you think it's THAT BAD, well, just don't watch it. Can't be good for your health in your old age getting your knickers in a twist about a sport.

CART Indycar was not a spec series, you're confusing it with Champcar and IRL.

They had very restricted tunnels witch worked.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Gaps ?!

The gaps weren't the problems, the trains were.

Hamilton complained about being stuck behind Rosberg, ditto Webber, ditto Alonso and Massa.

If they wouldn't back up the they'd cook the tires and overheat the engines.

"Wow! New rules, not sure huh? Why do they keep d#cking with it? Followed Mercedes power for the whole race, no chance to overtake - again" - Mark Webber.

Now we have aero push coming his twin aero cook.

But after ban on electronics this was expected, as it's always the car behind/in dirty air that gets ****ed up the most (by the rule changes).

Take heart. Eventually, I'm always proven right. Things will improve as we go along.

[DOF_power 0]

Take heart. Eventually, I'm always proven right. Things will improve as we go along.

Yeah but only because of the rain and/or some more friendly tracks (Brazil).

Have you looked at some of the 82 races ?!

They had ground effects since 1977/78 already with huge downforce levels, tires were handsomely wide already and slick and radial, carbon fibre tubs and carbon-carbon brakes were even found on some of the cars and refueling was allowed.

But the they could get close and pass each other.

[AleHop 0]

They had ground effects since 1977/78 already with huge downforce levels, tires were handsomely wide already and slick and radial, carbon fibre tubs and carbon-carbon brakes were even found on some of the cars and refueling was allowed.

I forgot about that.

- No refuelling

- Super DDDs

- Standard ECU and no electronic aids

- Super durable tyre compounds, spec tyres

- 8 engines for the whole season, 18k revs limit, engine freeze

- ...

[DOF_power 0]

I forgot about that.

- No refuelling

- Super DDDs

- Standard ECU and no electronic aids

- Super durable tyre compounds, spec tyres

- 8 engines for the whole season, 18k revs limit, engine freeze

- ...

I haven't forgotten. They were kinda my point.

[PRB 0]

Why aren't the mechanics in shorts and t-shirts for the pit stops like the old days. Without refuelling taking place surely the boys don't need to be dressed up the fireproof overalls and helmets do they?

A small but excellent idea that would add a bit of 'coolness' back to the pitlane.

A little perspective. The big problem is the massive gap between cars. Nobody is close enough to justify burning a bit of rubber to take a position. There is nothing inherently wrong with the current rules package except that it's new. The past few seasons saw relatively little rule changes and that helped the whole grid 'catch up' to the sharp end, producing close lap times and exciting racing (comparatively speaking).

This sort of yawnfest will go away as the teams start to improve throughout the season and if Todt can keep the rules from changing too much, we'll see some excitement yet.

Excellent points.

I'm not going to write off the season after just one race. I don't think it helped that it was in the middle of the desert in that heat. If by the 3rd or 4th race things haven't changed then maybe they can bring in some small changes. Granted they are not going to add back in re-fueling halfway through the season, the logistics make that impossible. But as Autopuma said, teams will get used to the new rules and regs and find ways to exploit them and it should improve the racing.

I hope and kind of expect McLaren and other such teams to close the gap to Ferrari and Red Bull and I expect at some of the tracks were the temperatures aren't so high to make for better racing.

*

Another thing I didn't like about Bahrain - and maybe it was just me and the TV angles - but the atmosphere seemed dead and there was little view of the crowds. I know that wouldn't effect the racing but F1 just looks better when you see the packed grandstands at some of the more traditional (for want of a controversial word) circuits.

[Max Mosley 2]

Why the f*** is it so hard, scrap the diffusers and crazy wings and venturis for most of the downforce. It worked for CART just fine.

CART was a spec series too. F1? F1 is different.

Yes - in F1 the teams have vested interests that make it harder to come up with sensible regulations. To answer's DOF's excellent question, if I'd invested millions in windtunnels, CFD supercomputers, and employed hundreds of aero boffins in order to have a competitive advantage over everyone else then I'd be a little reluctant to make those areas less important too. Max Mosley did try over several years to reduce downforce levels but was stymied by the teams.

Easy to answer the why do they keep "d#cking" with it. Because the fans keep bl00dy moaning year on year!

[Autumnpuma 0]

Yeah but only because of the rain and/or some more friendly tracks (Brazil).

Have you looked at some of the 82 races ?!

They had ground effects since 1977/78 already with huge downforce levels, tires were handsomely wide already and slick and radial, carbon fibre tubs and carbon-carbon brakes were even found on some of the cars and refueling was allowed.

But the they could get close and pass each other.

Yeah but only because of the rain and/or some more friendly tracks (Brazil).

Have you looked at some of the 82 races ?!

They had ground effects since 1977/78 already with huge downforce levels, tires were handsomely wide already and slick and radial, carbon fibre tubs and carbon-carbon brakes were even found on some of the cars and refueling was allowed.

But the they could get close and pass each other.

Funny you should mention the early 80's because that's right around when I started watching F1. As a child of 10 I couldn't understand much more than Gilles looking fantastic. What a start to a long love of F1 that was. Once you start down the path of Gilles, forever will it dominate your destiny. Anyway, what are you proposing? That we resurrect 1982? Think about how absurd that would be. All claims to being the pinnacle of racing technology would be gone. But hey, if all this sport is to you is a few cars passing each other, then I'm afraid you're watching chess expecting checkers.

But I understand what you're saying. Quite simply you want to switch the aero focus to the chassis instead of the wings and diffuser. That can end one of two ways. First would be that driver injuries and deaths would increase. The main problem with letting the chassis generate the downforce is when you break that vacuum to the ground the car takes flight. A flying car is hard to steer; ask Mark Webber about that....I think he still has a twig in his ear from LeMans. I shudder to think what would happen if a modern, ground-effect version of the 1982 cars were caught by the bumps in the new section of Bahrain. The other ending would be a spec car, much like the Champcar of a few years back. So, you either live with increased fatalities or you live with a spec car of restricted technology. Which would you prefer?

Despite my feigned arrogance about 'always being right', I really don't know how to fix it. I want advanced technology, but I fear that we've become too advanced. In the history of auto racing there were always two paths that could be taken. The first was that of the racer. This path would have put technology on the back burner in favor of mechanical grip and the friction circle. Looking back, I think this is the path racing should have followed. Instead, it chose the path of technology and we're reaping the rewards of that.

God, sometimes I'm a windbag.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Ole

OK the race wasn't great but it was the first ever boring GP with no overtaking of any note? No, it just happened to be the first of the season and expectations were high. You will get more boring races than you get exciting ones. Everyone seems to think that every race will be wheel-to-wheel action....well sorry to disappoint but it's not and it never has been, even back in the good old days (whenever they were).

I am sure the contributors to this forum have each watched their fair share of F1 races. How many over the last 10 years can you say were truly exciting and stick in the memory. 10 or 12 or 15 maybe. That's not averaging 2 per year and we are only on race 1 of a 19 race programme. I do think that a little patience is called for and not some knee jerk reaction to the situation that has been created.

And I think that is the root of the problem; the constant manipulation and changing of the rules. If a race doesn't deliver the goods then the rules are changed or amended in some way, shape or form. This is the wrong attitude. In football whenever two big clubs face each other the hype leading up to the game is huge; all the commentators talking about the attacking potential on both sides. The match inevitably ends up a defensive stalemate. But then the match following has goals aplenty. The football authorities do not pass a rule saying that the goalkeeper must leave the match for 15mins every half, or that a second ball is introduced into play! It applies in racing- you will have boring races. The more motor racing is manipulated the more people will turn off their TV's and the sport will be held up to more ridicule that it currently receives in the general press.

I am in favour of not refuelling the car. I didn't like the idea of a race could be lost because of a botched pit stop, or a driver simply waiting until his opponent goes into the pits before attacking the race track and getting the gap necessary to leap frog them.

The difference between pre 1994 and now is the tyres and the tyre regulations. We used to have the option of 4 compounds of tyre for a race (A - hard, B, C, D - very soft). Ok, maybe only two of those four compounds were realistic possibilities but we have the option of mixing up the tyres, putting harder tyres on one side of the car to make them last longer into the race. My old sparring partner Prost was of course the master of judging tyre wear. Too many times he would qualify around sixth on the grid and end up winning the race because he worked on his set up over the weekend, sacrificing qualifying for race performance. Gerhard was the opposite. He was always tough on his tyres and lost many positions because of this.

Bridgestone needs to come up with compounds similar to the ones of the past and the rules need to changed to give the driver and team the option of pitting or not pitting during a race, it should not be enforced. I know that I have said that changing the rules has been a negative, but this change should happen and then stick with it. All the drivers drive the same because of the past regulations. All of them a geared up for the race divided into sprints. There are no Prosts on the grid, using their race craft over the weekend to get the victory and overtaking people on the track and in pits. We must look back in order to move forward.

Final point. The points scoring system is a joke and a complete red herring. The points gap between first and second is irrelevant. Could be 1 point or 10 points, doesn't matter. A driver wants that victory on his record and wll go for it if he can. Points gathering only comes into it during the final third of the season.

Here endith the sermon.

Adeus (for now)

Gold.

Gosh, what a lot of words. Tyres too durable. Drivers too cautious. Give it a while.

Dammit Russ, how do you do that? Sixteen words and you've given us this thread's best post.

Good post, Spooky Senna. And exactly more or less what I said a few pages ago.

A couple of months back, I had a rant about how political and boring F1 was. I got told to watch something else. Have been an F1 fan since 1980-81 when I was four or five. I think like everybody here, am entitled after 29 years to voice what I think. Watch something else? Like f*ck. No matter how boring it gets, I know I'll be watching. I can't not. Its like everything - If it gets difficult, don't quit, and believe me when I say I know what I'm talking about.

Maybe you should all take into consideration the fact that just over three years ago, most of you were complaining races were being won from the pits. Strategists became invaluable.

I don't like no refuelling, its not like years back. There are systems far more intelligent that can predict when a car will run out of fuel, right down to the corner and how many seconds a lap in the driver is. A few years back it was drive and hope for the best. Refuelling needs to come back, the driver needs to be allowed to choose his own strategy and how much fuel. The driver needs to make a decision on which compounds he wants. This is what I think anyway. Give more responsibility to the driver. If he messes up, its his own fault. If he wins, he's a legend. And we get to see some raw wheel to wheel all out racing.

Oh dear. I hope that wasn't me spouting off? I've said that a few times to a few people and I suddenly regret that...apologies all around.

[DOF_power 0]

Funny you should mention the early 80's because that's right around when I started watching F1. As a child of 10 I couldn't understand much more than Gilles looking fantastic. What a start to a long love of F1 that was. Once you start down the path of Gilles, forever will it dominate your destiny. Anyway, what are you proposing? That we resurrect 1982? Think about how absurd that would be. All claims to being the pinnacle of racing technology would be gone. But hey, if all this sport is to you is a few cars passing each other, then I'm afraid you're watching chess expecting checkers.

But I understand what you're saying. Quite simply you want to switch the aero focus to the chassis instead of the wings and diffuser. That can end one of two ways. First would be that driver injuries and deaths would increase. The main problem with letting the chassis generate the downforce is when you break that vacuum to the ground the car takes flight. A flying car is hard to steer; ask Mark Webber about that....I think he still has a twig in his ear from LeMans. I shudder to think what would happen if a modern, ground-effect version of the 1982 cars were caught by the bumps in the new section of Bahrain. The other ending would be a spec car, much like the Champcar of a few years back. So, you either live with increased fatalities or you live with a spec car of restricted technology. Which would you prefer?

Despite my feigned arrogance about 'always being right', I really don't know how to fix it. I want advanced technology, but I fear that we've become too advanced. In the history of auto racing there were always two paths that could be taken. The first was that of the racer. This path would have put technology on the back burner in favor of mechanical grip and the friction circle. Looking back, I think this is the path racing should have followed. Instead, it chose the path of technology and we're reaping the rewards of that.

God, sometimes I'm a windbag.

1] My take, the ground effects venturis/underside of the car and rear wing should be standard.

Nobody watches the underbody of the cars or the rear wings, and today only the nose, sidepods and wheel rims provide any comprehensible visual variation (/diversity).

F1 should have standardized partially the aero and partially the suspensions (active hydraulic actuators) but give freedom in engines, transmissions, electronics, fuels and tires.

And give more setup and strategy freedom as well

The went the the wrong way IMO.

2] F1 didn't follow the path of technology, it followed the path of inefficiency.

Everything that was either (highly) efficient and/or innovative and/or relevant like turbos, electronics, variable valve timing, twin-chassis, low drag ground-effects aero, movable wings, active suspensions, eCVTs was banned.

F1 has degenerated to the point it is refining a Lotus 72 to the N-th degree (with carbon fibre and semi-autos/drive-by-wire only allowed for safety reasons).

F1 is "pushrod and carburetors" pretending to high tech.

[DOF_power 0]

Yes - in F1 the teams have vested interests that make it harder to come up with sensible regulations. To answer's DOF's excellent question, if I'd invested millions in windtunnels, CFD supercomputers, and employed hundreds of aero boffins in order to have a competitive advantage over everyone else then I'd be a little reluctant to make those areas less important too. Max Mosley did try over several years to reduce downforce levels but was stymied by the teams.

Actually FIA tried to reduce downforce since 1969 when they banned the high mounted movable wings, and failed every single time.

Besides, F1 doesn't need less downforce, it needs a less turbulent and less sensitive aero package.

The GE F1 racecars of the early 80s had enormous amounts of downforce, while the Group B/IMSA GTP cars had freaking unbelievable levels (some 4000 to 5000 kilos of downforce at @ 320 Km/h).

[Schumikonen 2]

No I have the perfect plan guaranteed to liven up the race.

Pre-race Charlie Whiting slips laxative into random driver water bottles and they're not allowed to come into the pits unless they overtake someone

You can bet you'd see some racing then.....

[Autumnpuma 0]

1] My take, the ground effects venturis/underside of the car and rear wing should be standard.

Nobody watches the underbody of the cars or the rear wings, and today only the nose, sidepods and wheel rims provide any comprehensible visual variation (/diversity).

F1 should have standardized partially the aero and partially the suspensions (active hydraulic actuators) but give freedom in engines, transmissions, electronics, fuels and tires.

And give more setup and strategy freedom as well

The went the the wrong way IMO.

2] F1 didn't follow the path of technology, it followed the path of inefficiency.

Everything that was either (highly) efficient and/or innovative and/or relevant like turbos, electronics, variable valve timing, twin-chassis, low drag ground-effects aero, movable wings, active suspensions, eCVTs was banned.

F1 has degenerated to the point it is refining a Lotus 72 to the N-th degree (with carbon fibre and semi-autos/drive-by-wire only allowed for safety reasons).

F1 is "pushrod and carburetors" pretending to high tech.

Sounds good.

[Jean Todt 4]

So Jean is time to hire a new track architec, isn´t it?

I have to ask Michelle!