To Save F1, What Needs To Be Done ?

[maure 1]

4 minutes ago, radical-one said:

Been a hater of DRS forrever !

http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/594868/Marko_DRS_is_not_real_overtaking_get_rid_of_it/

The problem is the policy, i.e., the rule book. If drivers could use DRS as they saw fit and when they so wanted, it would be a great addition. Right now, it is just a cheat and the culprit, again, is the regulations.

Morphing aero is part of the future of motor racing and I'll be for it as long as it is controlled by the driver (or rider). As it is now, yep, thumbs down from me too.

[Emmcee 0]

Drivers used to be able to use drs whenever they wanted and it was no different than what it is now. It didn't change anything.

[maure 1]

Please.

Many overtakings could not take place if the leading driver was not forbidden from using DRS. The rule changes everything.

[Emmcee 0]

Well it didn't do much before, it would be no different than not running the system at all. If everyone can use it whenever, then what's the point having it? Just revert back to more mechanical grip.

[maure 1]

But that's the key, my friend.

Consider a lap without DRS and a lap with use of DRS as the driver sees fit. The second one is faster for sure. F1 being a sprint race, it matters.

For me, the issue is to use it when you want and how you want, not just DRS but any kind of movable/morphing aero. As long as the driver controls it, it is an edge, like manually controlling the balance of the brakes. So, why not the aero?

The fact is that aero cannot be ignored. It is here and it is a factor. Dismissing it, quasi-banning it, or pseudo-regulating it does not make it go away. I say, bring it all on, but the driver has to put it to work.

So, for example, no closing of the DRS on hitting the brakes. The driver opens it manually and closes it manually whenever. Let's see who uses it best and the fastest takes the win.

[radical-one 0]

On February 21, 2017 at 7:03 PM, maure said:

The problem is the policy, i.e., the rule book. If drivers could use DRS as they saw fit and when they so wanted, it would be a great addition. Right now, it is just a cheat and the culprit, again, is the regulations.

Morphing aero is part of the future of motor racing and I'll be for it as long as it is controlled by the driver (or rider). As it is now, yep, thumbs down from me too.

Exactly. Driver controlled aides/devices are ok with me as well but anything done for them except inside the pits is not good for the sports imo.

[Emmcee 0]

But it's an extra aid, it's not like controlling the car with the throttle, formula one IMO needs to be as simple as can be but be the most advanced while doing so if you know what I mean? Just build it as a race car, low wide wings, fat tyres. The whole sport needs to revolve around mechanical grip, to be the fastest you actually have to be the fastest not just drive the best car quicker. they should only be limited to front and rear wings for aero and that's it, all other aids to help grip has to come mechanically not aero. With engines, to close the gap the regutions should give teams a "ball park" regulation. For example, no power unit can exceed 950bhp but has to be atleast 900bhp to compete. So teams can be closer but you still need to work hard to gain that extra hp.

[maure 1]

Of course, mechanical grip comes first. Otherwise, forget F1. It would become a race of low flying planes. Propulsion must come through the wheels.

Having said that, once again, there is no way to remove the aero element. Even if all teams were forced to use the exact same chassis, aero would still matter (e.g., mass damper, allegedly).

Now consider a driver not just able to open and close the DRS at will but to do so by degrees... We'll see who has the guts/skill to make the fastest turn at the end of the straight with just so much more or less downforce? And not just in the breaking zone but during, in, and out of a corner, every turn, every lap. I'll like to see that.

Heck, I'll like to see the cars morph into all kinds of configurations. Now THAT would have some freaking visual appeal.

[Emmcee 0]

I honestly think it would cause so many issues. Like all these people who were complaining about verstappens aggressive approach, will have to complain about majority of the field because there would be a heck of a lot more contact and drivers simply just dropping it by simply testing the laws of gravity. I totally see your point but once again were trying cover an issue up by going artificial. Why not be able to have this close racing but the authentic way and passing cars because your quicker, not because you had bigger gonads and deactivated your Drs later, heck why run wings at all, let's have no wings and have a button that allows usage of a wing instead. The only way f1 will solve all its issues and basically imeditaly is to return to a more authentic and genuine way of racing. You can have aero but the only moving parts are tyres and engine, everything else is fixed. Allows teams to run wings close as possible to the ground. Just have to go back to racing roots. See for me f1 is never the future for the simple fact it's a one of a kind category, so for f1 to consistently try and "outsmart" itself with new fan dangled items is IMO and has confused the sport. The regulations prove this, imo f1 should be run in the mind set of perfecting older parts instead of making new versions and allow the sport to progress that way. You would have such a fantastic category that has ticked all the boxes in the trial and error phase. If f1 rules were in swimming you wouldn't be able to use the pool when you wanted, only at allocated swimming sessions. You can use flippers at certain areas of the pool of you within a second of the swimmer in front. Just rediculous.

[maure 1]

We agree that the rules on the use DRS are an absurd and deceitful cheat. We also agree on the essential role of mechanical grip. There is no need to go over that again.

Having said that, I still see you trying to factor out aero and I still see you failing to do that. Look, several decades ago (many) you could ignore air resistance because people didn't know any better. Nowadays, it is impossible. There is no argument that can make the knowledge go away. So we gotta learn to live with it.

Now, you posit that it is possible to regulate aero out. I just don't see how. It is possible to pretend that "moveable" is a magic component of aero that can somehow control its impact on racing. Yet, the evidence is that this is not the case. Despite having regulated the sht out of areo over the years, it still has a huge impact on racing. Heck, it is the most important element after the engine (some people would argue tires go up there somewhere as well but, then again, so do many things).

My conclusion is that it is not possible to go back to basics regarding aero. Again, I just don't see how. Therefore, I argue that we should embrace it in a driver-controlled way (vs automated). This proposition, btw, also includes other elements like, for instance, engine mappings.

[Insider 0]

Big smelly V12s flat out. Unlimited innovation but with cost cap. Driver skills and reliability rule the day. Bring some danger back in. Fans like blood and guts. Equal shares of TV money. Governance by F1 commissioner elected every three years. Race control and FIA staff too. No DRS, professional stewards.

[Sakae 0]

Install ownership which has an interest in sport, rather than money milk machine.  

Define, or re-affirm series in uniquely sporting terms.

Third item on the "improvement agenda" - let Ross Brawn to finish his job, and then we see how we get there. This left, right, back and forward (mis?)management is hardly healthy for anyone. Playing Robin Hood on Ferrari or anyone else might be the colonial way to go, but it will solve exactly nothing, and it will do more harm than good (methinks).

[Emmcee 0]

Bang on sakae. That's where the whole issues boils down to, the passion for the sport instead of the financial gains. Now for bernie to get the job he had, at one point he had to have the interest of the sport ahead of any other ulterior motive. As time went by f1 grew and so did bernies hunger and desire to not only make the sport big but his pockets as well. Once corporate greed sets in that's it, all hope is gone because you don't see it so clearly like you once did before and make clouded judgements because your trying to benifit yourself before the main reason you got into the sport to begin with. If f1 can be run like it should be as a sport, then we wouldn't have an issue with anything because the sport and the show would always be number one priority bit when your introducing rediculous regulations because you have regulated something so far that the only other option you have left is to regulate the regulations. That's how bad it's getting now.

[maure 1]

Of course Sakae is right. We've talked about this before. F1 is a TV show that uses a racing as its gimmick. If they put a laugh track, few will be able to tell the difference.

 

 

[Sakae 0]

http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/596623/Mercedes_admits_Ferrari_SF70H_really_fast/

Experimental format? I love Ross, but I am not on the same page with him on that idea, which has earmarks of a quick fix of something which is not broken, and since Hamilton said he is all for it, it only reinforces my suspicion that it is a wrong move. I was hoping for technical intervention first, relaxing some testing rules, and removing competitive roadblocks, before we start even talking about which tie and shirt to take to races. I wonder if he was pushed into this by his boss "to do something right-away" as an interim improvement measure. It doesn't sound like a Ross I thought I "knew" over the years.

- teams have full hands as they are right now, and no resources can be wasted

- parts are calculated on certain competitive life cycle (reliability) / operations were optimized for a season

...and many other issues...

[Sakae 0]

Canadian and Russian Grand Prix events will remain on the calendar until 2029 and 2025 respectively. Now that's a commitment. I wonder what was tradeoff? Lower fees (if you sign on dotted line right now)?

[Emmcee 0]

idk how it works because I know a few circuits wanted large contracts but bernie refused so idk how some can and some can't.

[radical-one 0]

On February 26, 2017 at 6:00 PM, maure said:

Of course Sakae is right. We've talked about this before. F1 is a TV show that uses a racing as its gimmick. If they put a laugh track, few will be able to tell the difference.

 

 

LOL true !

Also for the grid girls it's an audition for aspiring actors,models, xxx vid models and possible bimbo for F1 drivers LOL

[Sakae 0]

We need better decision process.

Sounds good to me, however since we will have a lot of cooks cooking the same dinner, outcome could be interesting. If we assume that Strategy Group is not going away, then improvements would rest on those 6 votes FOM has at the moment, and then Ross must seek consensus elsewhere. I think he will receive a lot of support, however it could be interesting how they will handle any disunity within group of teams. I like his approach, altho the experimental races he mentioned already should be something on the bottom of that list IMO.

Interview

[Sakae 0]

Audience - 6 years in decline.

Have jointly FOM, CVC and FiA really done all what was possible and necessary, or the business was in reality mismanaged?

[Emmcee 0]

How is this Lewis's fault that bernie created a cash cow to line his pockets? Bernie sold the free to air rights, that's the decline because it's now happening in Australia.

[Sakae 0]

On 2/26/2017 at 10:00 AM, maure said:

 F1 is a TV show that uses a racing as its gimmick. If they put a laugh track, few will be able to tell the difference.

“I think entertainment has always been a priority,” 

(Todt) - F1 needs to be more entertaining and to create more fascination.

______

Makes one wonder how Todt and Brawn will collaborate on this project, because one cannot succeed without the other one cooperating at both, commercial and operational levels.

[maure 1]

27 minutes ago, Sakae said:

“I think entertainment has always been a priority,” 

(Todt) - F1 needs to be more entertaining and to create more fascination.

______

Makes one wonder how Todt and Brawn will collaborate on this project, because one cannot succeed without the other one cooperating at both, commercial and operational levels.

Yep. There is a fundamental belief in some quarters that F1 is not enough on its own, that it is lacking something essential as a motor-racing competition.

It is the reason why I often mention the Olympics on this matter. Who cares how popular the hammer throw competition is, for example. They are not going to replace hammers with emojis because they are more "TV friendly".

[Emmcee 0]

1 hour ago, maure said:

Yep. There is a fundamental belief in some quarters that F1 is not enough on its own, that it is lacking something essential as a motor-racing competition.

It is the reason why I often mention the Olympics on this matter. Who cares how popular the hammer throw competition is, for example. They are not going to replace hammers with emojis because they are more "TV friendly".

Yep I agree, that's the problem with f1, they try cater for new fans but burn the die hard ones in the process.

[maure 1]

Indeed.