Is Formula 1 broken?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I fail to see the technical relevance of DTM. They are not production-based, many components are standardized and I cannot remember road cars being equipped with two air restrictors with a diameter of twenty-five millimeters each.

So, there must be something I overlook.

Many components in road cars are standardised and to the casual observer, DTM cars look like beefed up production cars and therefore DTM is an excellent way to for Audi to market themselves.

[Pingguest]

"We are focusing on the World Endurance Championship and DTM.

We want to win Le Mans in a championship where electric and hybrid technology plays a very major role, while we are in discussions with the DTM about when we can introduce this kind of technology.

On the regulations front there are a lot of rumours around the engine side and the supporting technology side," he said.

Before you commit the kind of money needed you must see five years of rules stability - there can't be the possibility of rules changes, of more or less engine cylinders coming in, or the hybrid system changing away from technology you are developing on road cars.

On the ownership side there are also big questions the sport must answer.

If you are a big business making a big investment you expect to have some influence on the set-up, with an assurance the present ownership will last.

In F1 it seems the owners will not be there forever and that creates some instability."

[chunder]

The reason Audi might prefer to be in F1 is becaise they are all equallly big fish there, they cna manipulate results in their favour far more than in F1.

They would get on fine in F1 if they tried it, DTM is almost as dull.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

"We are focusing on the World Endurance Championship and DTM.

We want to win Le Mans in a championship where electric and hybrid technology plays a very major role, while we are in discussions with the DTM about when we can introduce this kind of technology.

On the regulations front there are a lot of rumours around the engine side and the supporting technology side," he said.

Before you commit the kind of money needed you must see five years of rules stability - there can't be the possibility of rules changes, of more or less engine cylinders coming in, or the hybrid system changing away from technology you are developing on road cars.

On the ownership side there are also big questions the sport must answer.

If you are a big business making a big investment you expect to have some influence on the set-up, with an assurance the present ownership will last.

In F1 it seems the owners will not be there forever and that creates some instability."

Of course they want rules stability and five years of it. If Audi were to enter F1, they are going to have throw a lot of money at it and who wants to be associated with an organisation that hasn't got that stability?

"There can't be the possibility of rules changes, of more or less engine cylinders coming in, or the hybrid system changing away from technology you are developing on road cars."

This is just as I thought. They want to be involved in a racing series, which is relevant to their road cars and the technology they are developing. WEC and DTM fit the bill, both technologically and from a marketing point of view.

[Mekola]

Honda shows the way the manufacturers wouldn't want to take. Any "newcomer" to engine rules must follow Honda struggles, then it's not a business, with these engine regulations, go into F1. Then it's a "closed shop" for Merc, Ferrari and Renault, with Honda struggling and the absent Cosworth project. No more, no less, but that's a big restriction for F1 these days. Manufacturer prefers other forms of motorsport for their path to success, like WEC, LM, DTM, WTCC or even the Dakar.

[TzeiTzei]

I feel like F1 has lost its way. They feel like they have this constant need to change things and spice up the show. There is no stability. It's in constant state of crisis. People inside the sport criticize it publicly and create this negative mood that then spreads among the fans as well. That is not the way to run a business. And I haven't even touched any of the practical issues within the sport. What F1 needs is someone who's in charge. And it can't be the teams or an investment bank.

[bauble]

Formula 1 has in my opinion relinquished the right to be regarded as 'the pinnacle of the sport'. It might have the highest profile and attract the big money, but in terms of competitive racing it is way down the league, with the constant tinkering and the artificial nature of much of the actual racing, DRS, tyre degradation etc. it is more like a circus act. Lewis Hamilton may be the best driver in the world, but I do not believe his last two 'World Champion Drivers Titles' contributes to the appellation if it is deserved.

What it needs is a complete shake-up and returned to a sport rather than a multimillion business. Sadly there is more chance of me becoming Prime Minister of Mars than any meaningful change to the current regime.

Vote for Bauble as PM of Mars.

[bella]

Originally Posted by bauble

Formula 1 has in my opinion relinquished the right to be regarded as 'the pinnacle of the sport'.

...

Vote for Bauble as PM of Mars.

you've got my vote.

maybe what's changed is that we feel the need to perceive something as the pinnacle of a sport...

[bauble]

Originally Posted by bella

you've got my vote.

maybe what's changed is that we feel the need to perceive something as the pinnacle of a sport...

When I take office Bella I will need a First Lady to be the power behind the throne.

Formula 1 with it's TV coverage should be inspiring viewers to think about going to actual race meetings, I wonder if it does?

[bella]

it probably doesn't, because being realistic for a second, what resemblance does a big shiny busy grid at a fancy middle eastern venue have to a sideways rainy day at snetterton?

there i suppose is where something much more accessible on a national level like btcc wins out. so perhaps it's more "i like f1, i'll look for more motorsport on television or youtube. ooh the btcc is on, i'll watch that". then "they're at oulton park next? that's only down the road, i think i'll take the kids/wife/mates and have a day out".

so yeah, it's a gateway drug, but only to the next stage of the tv foodchain i guess.

[chillibowl]

a couple of points in defense of F1.

- Audi's assertion that F1 lacks rules stability - what is the longest period of rules stability that f1 has enjoyed?

for me f1 has always been changing (whether its minor tweaks or more serious ones like engine change) so to say they wont enter because of uncertainty about the rules is not a valid concern. rather its always been the concern when entering F1 whether it was 20 years ago or today. as an auto company either you embrace change or you stop making competitively selling road cars.

actually to hear a large auto manu say that they require stability when their own industry is facing monumental changes in design and marketing forces makes me question why they dislike the concept of 'change' as it should already be an integral part of their business model.

- Audi/VW group have larger issues at the moment.

saying they dont want to be in F1 can be construed as them making a reasonable decision in the wake of a massive scandal and fair play to them for that type of spin control.

but F1 with all of its faults still does reach a far wider audience then the other series they are thinking about. for better or worse F1 is turning into a branding exercise and F1 is still a platform for which the VW group can use to rebuild its image as a leading engineering company.

there is an aspect here of 'me thinks they doth protest too much'.

- there claim that F1 lacks leadership.

that one i really do agree with but then again is that something that Audi/VW group could help with? is it an opportunity or is it a reason to stay away?

- the aero problem.

again thats a big problem but one created by the manus. they need to shift their focus to the mechanical side of things. this feeds into the leadership issue as BE has shown that his time tested techniques to control the manus is fading.

but is it necessarily a concern about what BE's current abilities are or a fear about who will be selected to run the circus after he retires? so more of a concern about the future.

-too much run offs/the pursuit of safety.

this is a difficult one to talk about because once someone says something against safety they paint themselves into a corner where it sounds like they dont care about the lives of the driver.

in this thread some of the safety choices are being questioned and are seen as something that has made the racing less enjoyable to watch.

when the same concern is raised in the closed cockpits thread the notion is dismissed as that poster raising irrelevant issues. F1 is for big boys and girls and people know the risk. making it safer (as we have seen with runoffs) does have a negative effect on the quality of the show.

im not sure where the proper balance is but i do feel the pendulum has swung to far to the side of caution.

[Mike Harte]

chillibowl, to answer the most important question about stability on the engine front, which is what Audi are concerned about, the rules were stable for at least 25 years from around 1965 when the 3.0 litre age commenced, which allowed Ford's Cosworth DVF to pretty well dominate for two decades. However, the rules were looser then, so there were V8 to V16 with everything in-between.

I am not suggesting that Audi is asking for that, but I do think that they would be looking for around 8 years stability in the overall rule, but allowing development at their own expense.

[chillibowl]

which is what i was getting at. everything in the world is moving much faster today then it was 25-50 years ago. in todays market place, isnt looking for 8 years worth of stability still a bit much to be requesting?

for all they know 8 years of stability means 8 years of being locked into an engine formula (so spending money for those 8 years) on a hybrid solution that may have no commercial applications 9 years from now.

with the level uncertainty currently facing the auto industry, there is potentially a financial and commercial downside to longer periods of stability.

how much of a potential i cant say but enough imo that their concern (lack of stability in F1) could actually been seen a positive.

[old man]

You actually see more on TV for all types of motor sport except perhaps karting and short ovals.

We do need to consider how we show/tell the spectators what is happening, who is leading, who might challenge and so on, the use of big screens is a help but radios for the cometary are essential, PA systems are rarely loud enough.

When I was new to this actually being there was the only way to see it

[chillibowl]

i use a $20 FM transmitter radio attachment for my phone (draws power from my phone and headphones act as the antenna) and am able to listen to the track side radio broadcast. otherwise use a radio app on your phone but for there will be data charges associated with that. or go old school and bring a portable radio.

actually im lucky in Canada as my provider allows me to use data anywhere in Canada without incurring additional roaming charges so i can use the live timing on the website on the cheap.

last race i went to (2 years ago) i used my phone (main phone) as a mobile hotspot and connected an old phone of mine to that network and ran a live mobile stream off of it which gave me access to the TV commentary without drawing too much power from my main phone.

even allowed some of my out of country neighbours in the grandstand to connect to my network so they could follow the live timing/radio broadcast on their own phones. they rewarded me with beer

[Compromised]

F1 needs to answer one question - do you want the best driver to win, or the best car?

From there, you can shape and evolve the sport with some kind of forethought and stabiy

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Compromised

F1 needs to answer one question - do you want the best driver to win, or the best car?

From there, you can shape and evolve the sport with some kind of forethought and stabiy

I would reword that question. Does F1 want to be the best racing series, with the best drivers and best cars because for a while it hasn't been?

[Compromised]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I would reword that question. Does F1 want to be the best racing series, with the best drivers and best cars because for a while it hasn't been?

In my opinion you can't have the best cars and the best racing series. F1 has always been the best/fastest cars and more often than not the best drivers, but, other than a few races every season I'd argue that the racing has never been the best. It seems the best/fastest cars come at the cost of racing and for mine I'm glad - I'm interested in the engineering and development of the cars, rather than number of overtakes per race. If you want good racing, you need parity. In my opinion, parity and F1 should never meet but I'd say that puts me in the minority.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Compromised

In my opinion you can't have the best cars and the best racing series. F1 has always been the best/fastest cars and more often than not the best drivers, but, other than a few races every season I'd argue that the racing has never been the best. It seems the best/fastest cars come at the cost of racing and for mine I'm glad - I'm interested in the engineering and development of the cars, rather than number of overtakes per race. If you want good racing, you need parity. In my opinion, parity and F1 should never meet but I'd say that puts me in the minority.

I don't agree with at all. I've seen some of the best cars and some of the best drivers compete with each other, not merely for just a few races a season but for a number of seasons. There have been some epic rivalries over years. Though having said that, recently the racing has not been good.

[Paradise City]

What's the "best"? F1 being the best is just a subjective claim. Even what constitutes the best in racing is hotly contested. You'll have people on here who'll swear blind that clubbies are the best and they'll have a persuasive case too. Is "good racing" defined by the frequency of the passing, is it defined by the difficulty in passing? Do we take the spectator/viewer's opinion as to what constitutes the best or is that more properly the drivers call? Because the two might align but they might not. Monaco might be a case where driving talent goes to the fore but the spectator often gets short changed in terms of the action he craves.

Being the "best" is a mythology that F1 spins for itself. Not unreasonably so, most high tier sports make these kind of claims.

F1 is the most prestigious. That's a claim we can have good confidence in. Insofar as to the way the sport has been heading, the viewer is the master and his satisfaction is measured in TV numbers. Whether that constitutes a real challenge for the driver, is something that is slowly slipping down the priority list of the sports decision-makers.

[wnut]

Speaking of TV viewer figures.

Fred and Lewis chiming in on how F1 is broken and getting more broken:

http://www.pitpass.com/55579/Hamilto...-F1-is-heading

"The complexity of the rules also for the spectator is high. All my friends in Spain, they want to switch on the television and watch battles, big cars, big tyres, big noise and enjoy the race like they do with other sports. But for us they only know about MGU-H, MGU-K, state of charge, supersoft, used, mandatory, medium, when you are fourth in the race three laps to the end, you need to put on another mandatory tyre... things like that. It is understandable they switch off the television." Fred


and Lewis

Asked about the proposed qualifying format, he added: "It was fine, it was OK. Why confuse people even more? Even we don't understand what is going on. Imagine how people watching on TV can try to understand."

[Paradise City]

Knee-jerk and entirely unnecessary changes are in vogue in NASCAR presently. Change for change's sake. Chucking a dart at dartboard in the dark hoping it'll some kind of fan sweet spot.

And its a mentality that's in F1 too it would seem.

[JeremySmith]

There is nothing wrong with the present qualifying system, leave well enough alone and look at the BIG picture..

[S griffin]

It seems Fred and Lewis care more about those watching than Bernie do. Not surprised, those two are proper racers

[chillibowl]

addressing the big picture issues is easier said then done. the decline of BE, the growing strength of the manus combined with their own in fighting has left a political vacuum. and to be fair whose vision should f1 follow? BE/CVC, the FIA, Merc, Ferrari, RB/Horner...none of the invested parties seem to have a handle on that question.

for the foreseeable future, fiddling with the little bits is about all anyone can manage imo.