Fia Unveils Radical Plans For 2011

[Max Mosley 2]

The other thing to consider are the tracks because many of them are not good for today cars by today safety standarts and for today car performance in order to allow racing as it used to be.

Yeah that's quite true. I do like the tradition of racing at some of the historic tracks but you're right: I would expand the calendar by keeping most of the existing tracks and adding new ones designed for today's cars and with overtaking opportunities.

They won't. It's a red herring. The incredible thing is they have gone back on everything the proposed for the 2008 regulations that made a lot of sense. Now suddenly we have a completely different engine formula proposed, going back on the aero proposals, the plan to reintroduce slicks has been abandoned for no apparent reason.

It's like the proverbial infinite monkeys with typewriters, they'll eventually come up with something, good but I am not holding my breath.

You racist you!

Oh OK, be serious Murray... Well I agree with you really, unless the FIA is planning to issue a standardised aero adjustment device, that only switches settings when it senses the driver is following another car closely. If they did that I think it would help a little, but otherwise the advantage is going to be very small because if it can the car in front will just adjust its settings to match!

Are we gonna need teams anymore? They're trying to make every car the same with more and more artificial rules.

Woohoo!

Agree. Mechanical grip should trump aero grip.

Yup!

[DOF_power 0]

Why do you want more downforce? So that we have even higher cornering speeds, with cars glued to the track and virtually straightlining what used to be high speed hair raising corners, and make tracks like silverstone a virtual no brake zone?

High speed high G cornering = distinctive caracteristic of F1, witch adds an awe and hardcore factor to F1.

Else it would be just uber expensive ChampCar.

Where did you get the 620PS figure? Did you miss the removal of restrictions on turbos? How much power did 1.5 litre turbos produce again? Oh, that's right, a lot more than today's engines.

FIA documents with the 2011 proposals.

While the boost and revs are unrestricted they have another way to measure slow/reduce engine developement.

Today engines gain 5% power per year, the new ones will start with 620PS and will/should only gain 2.5%.

Turbos:

- 500 to 550 hp in the begining

- 850/900 at peak

- at best ~700 hp after FIA regulations/bans/restrictions

A few teams had some qualification specials producing over 1000 hp, but those were only for qualifications, not racing.

Agree there, though less skills are the only relevant part of the latter.

Why do you favour TC? What is the point of keeping TC with standard ECUs?

Exit oversteer for example.

Those who say "in my days" were driving children tricycles vs. today.

There is a limit not of skill, but of endurance, and coordonation, reflexes.

I agree. And it is not just the fact that these proposed rules are ridiculous, it's the fact that they have turned this into a huge joke, coming up with ridiculous proposals all the time, changing proposals every year, trumpeting bulls##t buzzwords like green technology and cost saving. It is a relentless stream of abuse and an insult to the intelligence of fans of the sport, I don't think I can take much more.

Green technology and/or cost savings = non-sense.

This is F1, not cheapo green racing.

Fuel efficiency? The engine will do exactly the same amount of work, it's how fast the car goes. F1 drivers aren't going to lift off the throttle if you reduce drag with moveale aero. Or is drivers lifting off on the straights part of Max's proposals?

On throtle the wings move to low drag drag positions = increase fuel efficiency, ... suposebly since these aren't production cars.

[F1 FANatic 1]

This strengthens my crazy belief that this is all a set-up to kill the value of Formula 1 so Bernie can buy it back from the banks at a profit.

Its not a crazy belief

and I have to say, if this is the future of F1, with such driver aids and such a retardation(as in the slowing down of) of progress drivers could win 20 championships and it wouldnt mean a tenth of one of Fangio's or Senna's. If this is the future I will just not watch because F1 will no longer hold the spirit it once did. It will be an empty shell of its former self

[DOF_power 0]

On Gilles, Andretti, lauda, Peterson, Stewart, and many outstanding and so outstanding drivers F1 cars had around 500 HP (485 cosworth, 510 Ferrari and 530 Alfa for a while) and despite of this was a better show than today. On the late

[DOF_power 0]

Its not a crazy belief

and I have to say, if this is the future of F1, with such driver aids and such a retardation(as in the slowing down of) of progress drivers could win 20 championships and it wouldnt mean a tenth of one of Fangio's or Senna's. If this is the future I will just not watch because F1 will no longer hold the spirit it once did. It will be an empty shell of its former self

Senna's McLaren of 1993 was one of the most techno aid full cars ever made in GP/F1 history, alongside the Williams of 92 and 93.

It had Traction Control, Launch Start, Semi Automatic Paddle Transmission, Active Suspensions and other electronics from TAG (potentially including active mobile ballast and/or ESP/ESC; tough these aren't not certified).

That's why Senna later downplayed Donington 1993.

He went to Williams, and before the 1994 season started, when all these aids were banned, Senna said he was very impressed with the Williams active ride cars.

The Williams cars of Mansell (1992) and Prost (1993) were also equipped with ABS.

Also these cars had computer brains witch monitored everything, so that if driver missed a shift, the computer imediatly took control of the semi automatic transmission and shifted for the driver.

So Prost, Mansell and Senna were the beneficiaries of the most electro aid full cars F1 ever saw.

And Fangio would have not been able to withstand 5, 6 G cornering.

He wouldn't fit to drive today's cars (too fat).

And he was also quite lazy, so it's very unlikely he would have bothered with the intense physical training and impossed diet required today.

[Max Mosley 2]

Its not a crazy belief

and I have to say, if this is the future of F1, with such driver aids and such a retardation(as in the slowing down of) of progress drivers could win 20 championships and it wouldnt mean a tenth of one of Fangio's or Senna's. If this is the future I will just not watch because F1 will no longer hold the spirit it once did. It will be an empty shell of its former self

On the contrary, the proposals being discussed by the FIA will make the drivers' championship far more meaningful. The differences between the cars will be smaller, so driver skill will matter more! In the future a WDC will mean far more than one of Fangio's or Senna's.

[DOF_power 0]

On the contrary, the proposals being discussed by the FIA will make the drivers' championship far more meaningful. The differences between the cars will be smaller, so driver skill will matter more! In the future a WDC will mean far more than one of Fangio's or Senna's.

Senna and Fangio had top cars in witch they won their WDCs, in fact the best cars (with some exceptions).

Fangio's other talent besides driving was sniffing to see who has the best car. And he made sure it remained the best by paying the mecanics. In some case he'd switch team in the course of the season, like in 54 when he started with Maserati then switched to MB.

The 54, 55 MBs of Fangio and 88, 89 McHondas of Senna were amongst the most dominant cars ever in GP racing history.

And again repost:

Senna's McLaren of 1993 was one of the most techno aid full cars ever made in GP/F1 history, alongside the Williams of 92 and 93.

It had Traction Control, Launch Start, Semi Automatic Paddle Transmission, Active Suspensions and other electronics from TAG (potentially including active mobile ballast and/or ESP/ESC; tough these aren't not certified).

That's why Senna later downplayed Donington 1993.

He went to Williams, and before the 1994 season started, when all these aids were banned, Senna said he was very impressed with the Williams active ride cars.

The Williams cars of Mansell (1992) and Prost (1993) were also equipped with ABS.

Also these cars had computer brains witch monitored everything, so that if driver missed a shift, the computer imediatly took control of the semi automatic transmission and shifted for the driver.

So Prost, Mansell and Senna were the beneficiaries of the most electro aid full cars F1 ever saw.

And Fangio would have not been able to withstand 5, 6 G cornering.

He wouldn't fit to drive today's cars (too fat).

And he was also quite lazy, so it's very unlikely he would have bothered with the intense physical training and impossed diet required today.

MB were very professional as opposed to the rest.

They did have "armies" of engineers/mecanics/designers/aerodynamicists.

And they used wind tunnels and had R&D laboratories (thanks to witch they had direct injection and desdemonic valves, and streamlined bodies).

MB even had, don't remember if for the GPs, sports or both, a type of anti brake-lock system, consisting of a sprinkler/seringe to oil the brakes.

And some of their cars had automatic/semi-automatic transmissions.

And MB cars were also supposed to incorporate AWD.

And the sports car also had a nice aero brake.

[Eric 0]

Alright, I didn't read this whole thread, but I do know the regs...(yes, I am back, see my blog for details, and while you're there, be sure to read the other 47 wonderful entries that are superb and are so great that one should assume the author of them is a gifted genuis. No, I'm not ashamed of self-promotion.)

So, back to the pieces of Sh#t, err, regs. I will say this: the purpose of attending a race would be defeated. Part of it is just the simple fact that the engines are loud, the cars are fast, and it smells like racing (racing smells lovely...to me, at least. Unfortunately, racing does not smell lovely to my girlfriend, which sucks, since I usually smell like racing myself working with karts and stock cars and such.) 1.3L biofuel V4's take all that away. Maybe, just maybe, it'll still be fast with 600 ponies, but still.

Next, the engine life is not official, but I've heard anything from 4 race to a whole season to 20 years. I say no. I've said it before. If they wanna cut costs, at the end of the season the 4 highest spending teams must give 25% of what they spent to the 4 lowest spending teams. Then the teams with low budgets have more, the teams with high budgets try to spend less so they don't have to give anything or at least not as much to the small teams, and the middle 4 are spending the right amount for F1. Engine life rules encourage engine conservation, which forces drivers to not try to overtake. Even if these regs do promote better overtaking, I'm still not sure the drivers will because the cars are fragile and the engines have to last. Also, the cars may physically be able to run close now, but that doesn't mean they will. The leader seems to have a 10-20 second lead almost every race. While a car will be able to run right behind another, I don't know if it will. The standard parts may help, and I think that's a good thing.

Lastly, the flexi-wings. Bah. I don't like moveable aero. I like my racing cars to have some simplicity. Innovation is cool, but how is a flexi-wing innovative when everyone has one?

With that, I give it mixed reviews. However, I still think the FIA is as horrible sanctioning body for our sport. Formula 1 is about racing. It is not here to solve the world's problems or to contribute anything to the world other than entertainment. What it all comes down to is that sport is essentially pointless, and I think it's perfect that way. They need to stop trying to be something they aren't.

-Eric

[DOF_power 0]

It's not flexi wings, it's flapy wings.

Wings adjust between low drag on the straights/throttle and downforce-drag on cornering. It thus eliminates winglets = costs + turbulence (= no overtaking)

[Max Mosley 2]

Senna and Fangio had top cars in witch they won their WDCs, in fact the best cars (with some exceptions).

Yes of course. F1 has a long tradition of producing meaningless WDC's. No one other than me (who hates it) and you (who seem to accept it) understand that. One day everyone else will wake up.

Alright, I didn't read this whole thread, but I do know the regs...(yes, I am back, see my blog for details, and while you're there, be sure to read the other 47 wonderful entries that are superb and are so great that one should assume the author of them is a gifted genuis. No, I'm not ashamed of self-promotion.)

Well, when no one else is doing it on your behalf... Just kidding, I hope you stay around. This forum is losing its best posters and drowning in drivel right now.

With that, I give it mixed reviews. However, I still think the FIA is as horrible sanctioning body for our sport. Formula 1 is about racing. It is not here to solve the world's problems or to contribute anything to the world other than entertainment. What it all comes down to is that sport is essentially pointless, and I think it's perfect that way. They need to stop trying to be something they aren't.

Your review is probably better than any other one I've read here, but you're still far too negative imho.

So, back to the pieces of Sh#t, err, regs. I will say this: the purpose of attending a race would be defeated. Part of it is just the simple fact that the engines are loud, the cars are fast, and it smells like racing (racing smells lovely...to me, at least. Unfortunately, racing does not smell lovely to my girlfriend, which sucks, since I usually smell like racing myself working with karts and stock cars and such.) 1.3L biofuel V4's take all that away. Maybe, just maybe, it'll still be fast with 600 ponies, but still.

Fear not, for they will be just as fast. The plan is for them to maintain 2009 pace I believe. They will surely not be any slower than they are today. Does biofuel really smell that different? I suppose there might be less of it, with the smaller engines but I think there will still be an unhealthy reek of fuel. Perhaps they will be a little quieter.

Next, the engine life is not official, but I've heard anything from 4 race to a whole season to 20 years. I say no. I've said it before. If they wanna cut costs, at the end of the season the 4 highest spending teams must give 25% of what they spent to the 4 lowest spending teams. Then the teams with low budgets have more, the teams with high budgets try to spend less so they don't have to give anything or at least not as much to the small teams, and the middle 4 are spending the right amount for F1. Engine life rules encourage engine conservation, which forces drivers to not try to overtake. Even if these regs do promote better overtaking, I'm still not sure the drivers will because the cars are fragile and the engines have to last.

Interesting idea. I'll have to consider it properly. Frankly I really don't care whether they cut costs or not. It's the spectacle I care about, and the competition.

Also, the cars may physically be able to run close now, but that doesn't mean they will. The leader seems to have a 10-20 second lead almost every race. While a car will be able to run right behind another, I don't know if it will. The standard parts may help, and I think that's a good thing.

Now this is the best bit. This is clearly the main problem in F1. It's incredible that only 2 people here have grasped this. In fact I would go much further than you and say that the whole point of these regulations is to narrow the gap between the cars. That is why they are the best proposals I've read about in F1, ever. Read Mike's post (always good advice!) in this thread where Tony Purnell explains all this. Of course Mike hates the proposals, for reasons that aren't at all clear to me.

[Eric 0]

Well, when no one else is doing it on your behalf... Just kidding, I hope you stay around. This forum is losing its best posters and drowning in drivel right now.

Well, it is embarrassing to have 1000324029580345 entries and 40 comments when some blogs with 2 entries have 100 comments...

And the best posters going away is all because of me. When I went away, they all figured that this forum is pointless without my insight (which is not bad for only watching 1.5 season of F1...and speaking of this insight, you can read it in my blog! Which you should comment on, because the author is wonderful...)

And the negativity, I've always been that way!

On a more serious note, I don't understand the technical side of F1, so therefore don't really understand the regs. Though vastly different from what I'd do with the sport, I think I'll wait it out til 2011 and give it a shot before drawing conclusions that spec Honda Insights will be racing.

-Eric

[DOF_power 0]

Yes of course. F1 has a long tradition of producing meaningless WDC's. No one other than me (who hates it) and you (who seem to accept it) understand that. One day everyone else will wake up.

I don't know if there is one such man that could be considered meaningless or unworthy WDC.

Fear not, for they will be just as fast. The plan is for them to maintain 2009 pace I believe. They will surely not be any slower than they are today. Does biofuel really smell that different? I suppose there might be less of it, with the smaller engines but I think there will still be an unhealthy reek of fuel. Perhaps they will be a little quieter.

Interesting idea. I'll have to consider it properly. Frankly I really don't care whether they cut costs or not. It's the spectacle I care about, and the competition.

But the point is to increase the pace. If the 09 won't be faster vs. the 04 cars, that means by 2011 car's would still be bellow 2004 pace. Such a decline would be unheard of in the history of GP racing (minus WWII mess), and would question whether or not GP is still alive.

Now this is the best bit. This is clearly the main problem in F1. It's incredible that only 2 people here have grasped this. In fact I would go much further than you and say that the whole point of these regulations is to narrow the gap between the cars. That is why they are the best proposals I've read about in F1, ever. Read Mike's post (always good advice!) in this thread where Tony Purnell explains all this. Of course Mike hates the proposals, for reasons that aren't at all clear to me.

But punishing winners and reducing them to spec-ed loser performance is not the essence of GP racing, on the contrary it would mean the death of GP racing.

[Max Mosley 2]

Well, it is embarrassing to have 1000324029580345 entries and 40 comments when some blogs with 2 entries have 100 comments...

And the best posters going away is all because of me. When I went away, they all figured that this forum is pointless without my insight (which is not bad for only watching 1.5 season of F1...and speaking of this insight, you can read it in my blog! Which you should comment on, because the author is wonderful...)

No I really like your blog! I mean, now that all the great posters have left, it's one of the best things about TF1!

On a more serious note, I don't understand the technical side of F1, so therefore don't really understand the regs. Though vastly different from what I'd do with the sport, I think I'll wait it out til 2011 and give it a shot before drawing conclusions that spec Honda Insights will be racing.

Yeah, I'm doing a phd in Physics and I don't understand in any satisfying detail what's so good about the McLaren's aerodynamics, or why a driver might pit on a particular lap exactly, to pick examples at random. I think it's so strange when people say they love the technical side of F1, then admit that they don't know the difference between downforce and drag! Frankly I think most of them are just making excuses to justify a lack of imagination for how F1 could be. The point of it for most people is a drivers contest, whether they understand that that's why they watch or not, and which would be improved by everything the FIA have proposed.

The point about these proposals is simply to make the teams more equal. So we would have more standard parts and more restrictions on design, which according to Purnell would mean the downforce gained per dollar spent by a team would fall by an order of magnitude. Therefore the cars will be more similar in performance, leading to better and fairer racing, with more overtaking.

[Max Mosley 2]

I don't know if there is one such man that could be considered meaningless or unworthy WDC.

They're almost all meaningless, because the car determines who wins almost every time. Fortunately the best drivers have the best cars, so they aren't unworthy all the time. There are plenty of times when the best driver in the world has not won the WDC, in which case I don't see how they are worthy or meaningful awards, unless you want to reward the losers/runners up...

But the point is to increase the pace. If the 09 won't be faster vs. the 04 cars, that means by 2011 car's would still be bellow 2004 pace. Such a decline would be unheard of in the history of GP racing (minus WWII mess), and would question whether or not GP is still alive.

The cars will very quickly become too fast to drive. You would have to put robots in there, or give the drivers g-suits, and even their reaction times would fail. Don't you understand that there are limits to how fast you can make the cars?

We can still have technical "progress", if you really want that, but only by tightening the regulations, so that one has to go fast with harder and harder rules.

But punishing winners and reducing them to spec-ed loser performance is not the essence of GP racing, on the contrary it would mean the death of GP racing.

This is a meaningless phrase imho. It all depends on your definition of "GP racing". I want to see a drivers' contest, and as I said above, these proposals are just the thing to improve that aspect of the sport.

[DOF_power 0]

Yeah, I'm doing a phd in Physics and I don't understand in any satisfying detail what's so good about the McLaren's aerodynamics, or why a driver might pit on a particular lap exactly, to pick examples at random. I think it's so strange when people say they love the technical side of F1, then admit that they don't know the difference between downforce and drag! Frankly I think most of them are just making excuses to justify a lack of imagination for how F1 could be. The point of it for most people is a drivers contest, whether they understand that that's why they watch or not, and which would be improved by everything the FIA have proposed.

The point about these proposals is simply to make the teams more equal. So we would have more standard parts and more restrictions on design, which according to Purnell would mean the downforce gained per dollar spent by a team would fall by an order of magnitude. Therefore the cars will be more similar in performance, leading to better and fairer racing, with more overtaking.

GP racing was born as a competition for manufacturers/teams.

In fact, simply because the french didn't liked the fact that there weren't enough manufacturers (french obviously) in the predecesor of GP racing the Gordon Bennett Cup.

Acording the Gordon Bennett rules, a nation could only enter 3 manufacturers in the competition. This p**sing of the french felt (cause they had 7 or manufacturers who could win) is why they held the Grand Prix and why we have F1 today.

The winner of the GP was in a french car as intended, but it was a hungarian. But the french, ACF, didn't care, since it was mission acomplished.

The first world championships were for manufacturers not drivers,

but

a) at one point someone came with the idea of a championship for drivers

humans attached themselves to flesh (drivers) not metal (machines)

Thus GP racing went from a team/manufacturer competition to a team/manufacturer AND driver's competition. But some begun fantasing/beliving that GP/F1 was a driver's competition.

[Eric 0]

No I really like your blog! I mean, now that all the great posters have left, it's one of the best things about TF1!

And it wasn't before they left?

To keep this post relevant, I like the standard parts. People who hate spec racing baffle me. Perhaps the car design takes away from the pinnacle part, but I think the current parades aren't very pinnacle-ish. And it won't be 100% spec, so that's good. I'll even confess, I don't mind the Champ Car-ization of F1. I love Champ Car (*hides*)

Now, if we could only get some V12's in those cars with that good-smelling NASCAR gasoline...

-Eric, who had to re-type this post because Comcast gives me crappy Internet service. Grr.

[DOF_power 0]

And it wasn't before they left?

To keep this post relevant, I like the standard parts. People who hate spec racing baffle me. Perhaps the car design takes away from the pinnacle part, but I think the current parades aren't very pinnacle-ish. And it won't be 100% spec, so that's good. I'll even confess, I don't mind the Champ Car-ization of F1. I love Champ Car (*hides*)

Now, if we could only get some V12's in those cars with that good-smelling NASCAR gasoline...

-Eric, who had to re-type this post because Comcast gives me crappy Internet service. Grr.

NO, no, no ... no spec bodies-chassies, engines.

V12 were outpowered by V10s BTW. Senna and Berger were complaining by 1991 that the honda V12 is underpowered vs. the Renault's V10.

So unless you have a fetish for bigger, heavier, thirstier, less powerfull engines, there's no reason to use V12 over V10s.

[Eric 0]

NO, no, no ... no spec bodies-chassies, engines.

V12 were outpowered by V10s BTW. Senna and Berger were complaining by 1991 that the honda V12 is underpowered vs. the Renault's V10.

So unless you have a fetish for bigger, heavier, thirstier, less powerfull engines, there's no reason to use V12 over V10s.

The Ferrari V12's sound good. I should have thought bout the Honda V12, actually, I'm right around those years in the Senna biography (which it seems I have been reading since 1991...it's quite long)

What kind of engines did they run in the 70s? I want those. Those had the best sound. (Late 70s, I think...)

Spec engines in F1, no. Spec bodies/chassis in F1, no. Some, but not all, standard parts, yes. Unless you have a fetish for monotonous parades that wouldn't hold my interest if it weren't for David Hobbs. However, don't really listen to my opinions (yes, I'm not promoting myself, GASP) that seriously about F1 being boring, I happen to have ADD and everything is boring after a while to me.

-Eric

[Max Mosley 2]

And it wasn't before they left?

To keep this post relevant, I like the standard parts. People who hate spec racing baffle me. Perhaps the car design takes away from the pinnacle part, but I think the current parades aren't very pinnacle-ish. And it won't be 100% spec, so that's good. I'll even confess, I don't mind the Champ Car-ization of F1. I love Champ Car (*hides*)

Now, if we could only get some V12's in those cars with that good-smelling NASCAR gasoline...

-Eric, who had to re-type this post because Comcast gives me crappy Internet service. Grr.

No! Nor do I. In fact if the drivers in Champ Car were as good as in F1 I would switch allegiance in a flash. It's a better product in almost every other way imho.

Personally I would like to see the FIA issue standardised cars, as I've said many times recently (self-promotion is contagious!), and now it seems the FIA wish they could do exactly that. It really would make the sport more appealing to almost everybody, if only they could understand that. The problem with democracy is that everyone has a vote.

[DOF_power 0]

The Ferrari V12's sound good. I should have thought bout the Honda V12, actually, I'm right around those years in the Senna biography (which it seems I have been reading since 1991...it's quite long)

What kind of engines did they run in the 70s? I want those. Those had the best sound. (Late 70s, I think...)

Spec engines in F1, no. Spec bodies/chassis in F1, no. Some, but not all, standard parts, yes. Unless you have a fetish for monotonous parades that wouldn't hold my interest if it weren't for David Hobbs. However, don't really listen to my opinions (yes, I'm not promoting myself, GASP) that seriously about F1 being boring, I happen to have ADD and everything is boring after a while to me.

-Eric

OK, so maybe some parts, I agree.

The late 70s ... well let's see, Ferrari flat 12, Alfa flat 12 and V12, Ford V8 DFV, and Renault V6 turbo and twin-turbo.

[DOF_power 0]

Personally I would like to see the FIA issue standardised cars, as I've said many times recently (self-promotion is contagious!), and now it seems the FIA wish they could do exactly that. It really would make the sport more appealing to almost everybody

... except for Ferrari fans, and McLaren/MB fans, and Renault fans and BMW fans ... etc

And men like Enzo Ferrari, Dr. Ferdinand Porsche, C. Chapman would be rolling in their graves.

[F1 FANatic 1]

F1 was set up as a WCC. the WDC was only added later for the drivers. The spirit of F1 was to give people a set of rules and say: "Here, do what you will within these given parameters"

Today's FIA is trying to take that away. I, and I would say a lot more people, watch F1 the same amount for the cars and for the drivers. I dont think that when one team dominates the driver wins a meaningless WDC. If one team dominates like Merc in 88 and Ferrari from 00-04 then that means that they did just what they were supposed to do. They built the best possible car while following the guidelines of the FIA. If anything the teams that dominate should be applauded. Sure we don't like it if our favorite driver doesn't win but in the end we should still, even if grudgingly, admit that he and his team were beaten fair and square.

There is a reason F1 is called Formula One. It is not just a name. It is called thus because it was set out to be the most premier and prestigious set of rules under which to run a RACE car. What the FIA are doing now is changing that, it is no longer about the teams. No longer about individual innovation but about preselected and predetermined advancement. F1 wasn't set up to be a test bed for road technologies, it wasn't set up to be the place where every driver gets a fair shot. It was set up to be the place where the worlds greatest car makers came together and built cars for one reason and one reason alone. To go really, really, really, fast around tracks a normal man would not dare to drive around faster than his grandma could walk.

There is a reason I don't watch stock series. Its not because the drivers are bad, a lot of them are actually very good, and its not because the cars don't compete evenly, because in those series the racing is often much closer. Those two factors are the heart of stock car racing. Everybody gets the same car so you can see who is the best. But for me that is only half the heart of racing, the other half is the machines used for racing and because F1 is about the only place left where innovation is even still allowed I watch it. If the FIA takes half of the spirit of F1 away it will be nothing more than a far more expensive Camp Car or Indy or GP2.

[Quiet One 15]

F1 was set up as a WCC. the WDC was only added later for the drivers. The spirit of F1 was to give people a set of rules and say: "Here, do what you will within these given parameters"

Today's FIA is trying to take that away. I, and I would say a lot more people, watch F1 the same amount for the cars and for the drivers. I dont think that when one team dominates the driver wins a meaningless WDC. If one team dominates like Merc in 88 and Ferrari from 00-04 then that means that they did just what they were supposed to do. They built the best possible car while following the guidelines of the FIA. If anything the teams that dominate should be applauded. Sure we don't like it if our favorite driver doesn't win but in the end we should still, even if grudgingly, admit that he and his team were beaten fair and square.

There is a reason F1 is called Formula One. It is not just a name. It is called thus because it was set out to be the most premier and prestigious set of rules under which to run a RACE car. What the FIA are doing now is changing that, it is no longer about the teams. No longer about individual innovation but about preselected and predetermined advancement. F1 wasn't set up to be a test bed for road technologies, it wasn't set up to be the place where every driver gets a fair shot. It was set up to be the place where the worlds greatest car makers came together and built cars for one reason and one reason alone. To go really, really, really, fast around tracks a normal man would not dare to drive around faster than his grandma could walk.

There is a reason I don't watch stock series. Its not because the drivers are bad, a lot of them are actually very good, and its not because the cars don't compete evenly, because in those series the racing is often much closer. Those two factors are the heart of stock car racing. Everybody gets the same car so you can see who is the best. But for me that is only half the heart of racing, the other half is the machines used for racing and because F1 is about the only place left where innovation is even still allowed I watch it. If the FIA takes half of the spirit of F1 away it will be nothing more than a far more expensive Camp Car or Indy or GP2.

Amen, brother!

[Max Mosley 2]

... except for Ferrari fans, and McLaren/MB fans, and Renault fans and BMW fans ... etc

And men like Enzo Ferrari, Dr. Ferdinand Porsche, C. Chapman would be rolling in their graves.

The fact that most people watch F1 mainly for the drivers competition is obvious to the FIA, the teams and even anyone who looks at the discussions on this forum. Or look at the popularity of F1 in various countries. Who watched F1 in Spain before Alonso? How many more cared in Germany after Schumacher? How many more people care in the UK now that Lewis is around, even though we had several good drivers before? How many Japanese fans care about Super Aguri, rather than Sato? How many people in the UK could name 3 british drivers of the last 10 years compared to 3 british teams, even though the teams are around much longer? Look at TV/media coverage: it always focusses on the drivers. I think most people here need to open their eyes.

There are very few McLaren, Renault and BMW fans in the grand scheme of things, even here in the UK for McLaren, and Renault and BMW will most likely leave the sport again at some stage in the future anyway. In any case I think you'll find most people who support a particular team do so because of a driver they like. Ferrari fans would lose out, (hence the "almost" in my post above) but the vast majority of people around the world would be much happier. We have very few debates here about the teams and lots about the drivers. Frankly most people on this site couldn't explain the most basic technical things so how they can claim to be interested in the work of the teams I don't know. Finally the FIA and even(!) the teams clearly believe, and always have, that fans want to see fair, close battles between drivers, not teams.

F1 was set up as a WCC. the WDC was only added later for the drivers. The spirit of F1 was to give people a set of rules and say: "Here, do what you will within these given parameters"

Today's FIA is trying to take that away. I, and I would say a lot more people, watch F1 the same amount for the cars and for the drivers. I dont think that when one team dominates the driver wins a meaningless WDC. If one team dominates like Merc in 88 and Ferrari from 00-04 then that means that they did just what they were supposed to do. They built the best possible car while following the guidelines of the FIA. If anything the teams that dominate should be applauded. Sure we don't like it if our favorite driver doesn't win but in the end we should still, even if grudgingly, admit that he and his team were beaten fair and square.

There is a reason F1 is called Formula One. It is not just a name. It is called thus because it was set out to be the most premier and prestigious set of rules under which to run a RACE car. What the FIA are doing now is changing that, it is no longer about the teams. No longer about individual innovation but about preselected and predetermined advancement. F1 wasn't set up to be a test bed for road technologies, it wasn't set up to be the place where every driver gets a fair shot. It was set up to be the place where the worlds greatest car makers came together and built cars for one reason and one reason alone. To go really, really, really, fast around tracks a normal man would not dare to drive around faster than his grandma could walk.

There is a reason I don't watch stock series. Its not because the drivers are bad, a lot of them are actually very good, and its not because the cars don't compete evenly, because in those series the racing is often much closer. Those two factors are the heart of stock car racing. Everybody gets the same car so you can see who is the best. But for me that is only half the heart of racing, the other half is the machines used for racing and because F1 is about the only place left where innovation is even still allowed I watch it. If the FIA takes half of the spirit of F1 away it will be nothing more than a far more expensive Camp Car or Indy or GP2.

See above.

Also, I don't think what you say about the worthiness of the WDC makes any sense at all. If a driver wins the WDC in a dominant car, how on earth is that meaningful? The differences between the cars are 10x those between the drivers, so whoever wins is normally decided by the cars/teams about 9/10 years. The WDC is pathetic, meaningless and worthless.

Furthermore your arguments about the name "F1" are not important. It's a sport that human beings created, and we can adapt it any way we like.

Finally, going "really, really, really fast" etc is easy. I could design a faster car than the current McLaren. Anyone who understands engineering/science at all would be able to see this. I could design a car so fast that no human being could drive it. There we go, the end of F1. What a great story.

[Eric 0]

I agree with Murray (I think. My ADD prevented me from reading the whole thing, since of course, it just was not as wonderful as my blog that you should be reading and commenting on...)

Uhh, I don't really care about teams. Why would I? I don't driver a Ferrari. I don't drive a Renault. The car manufactures are simply sponsors, anyway.

The WCC came before the WDC? Well, that's just dumb. F1's been off-course longer than I thought.

-Eric

Edit: Would like to respond to the turning over in their grave comment...if anything in this world has stuck with tradition 100% of the way and you can prove it, I will race a tricycle instead of my Sport Truck racecar(truck) next weekend.