[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I guess, .

Who's the driver, he looks very familiar?

Danni Ricc!

I'd recognise that smile anywhere!

[Armco Bender]

I watched quite a lot of F5000 racing, and I always thought it was the most genuine "big" open wheel series, the racing had a rawness and immediacy that always displayed driving talent.

Oh...Oh god...Ooo Oh God...Oh...Oh...Oh...Oh God...
Oh yeah right there Oh! Oh...Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes...Oh...Oh...
Yes Yes Yes....Oh...Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes...Oh...Oh... Oh...F5000 bring it back....

[wolfhound]

As the season reches its half way point it looks like the drivers championship is going to go down to the wire. Bernie's double points finish could be have a major bearing on the final result.

Take a scenario where the driver are about 5 poins apart going into the final race. They finish one two with the leader going into the race finshing second. If the normal points situation was in place then the driver coming into the race would be WDC but because of double points the positons would be reversed.

Would that be a fair result? Not in my book.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by miatanut

We've been down this road before. Yes, they COULD, but with drag increasing as a function of speed squared, the ideal situation from a fuel consumption perspective would be if you could run the entire race at the average speed, because any time you go faster than the average, you are paying a fuel consumption penalty.

Because they want to get the most out of the limited fuel, they won't want to go unnecessarily fast at any point.

In the past and present drivers are willing to pay that penalty if it allows them to pass or defend during a battle. Not that many drivers do an entire race 'on average'.

[Pingguest]

http://www.f1times.co.uk/news/display/09159

It is said that Formula One considers the introduction of success balast. This cannot be true! I am really getting sick and tired of the artificial regulations. They are not a part of the solution but a part of the problem!

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

http://www.f1times.co.uk/news/display/09159

It is said that Formula One considers the introduction of success balast. This cannot be true! I am really getting sick and tired of the artificial regulations. They are not a part of the solution but a part of the problem!

Ugh.

[S griffin]

Someone give me a time machine so I can see proper F1 again!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

http://www.f1times.co.uk/news/display/09159

It is said that Formula One considers the introduction of success balast. This cannot be true! I am really getting sick and tired of the artificial regulations. They are not a part of the solution but a part of the problem!

If they wan't to entice more spectators to race tracks then it starts at the top, with Bernie. Stop charging such a high sanctioning fee then promoters and track owners wouldn't have to pass the cost on spectators, in the form of expensive tickets. Likewise with TV audiences, stop broadcasting F1 on pay to view and lining the pockets of Murdoch etc.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If they wan't to entice more spectators to race tracks then it starts at the top, with Bernie. Stop charging such a high sanctioning fee then promoters and track owners wouldn't have to pass the cost on spectators, in the form of expensive tickets. Likewise with TV audiences, stop broadcasting F1 on pay to view and lining the pockets of Murdoch etc.

All Bernie and CVC want to see is lots of $$$$$$$$ they don't seem to care about anything else. I suspect when they eventually sell F1 to somebody else it will need a major rebuild to get it back to where it should be.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If they wan't to entice more spectators to race tracks then it starts at the top, with Bernie. Stop charging such a high sanctioning fee then promoters and track owners wouldn't have to pass the cost on spectators, in the form of expensive tickets. Likewise with TV audiences, stop broadcasting F1 on pay to view and lining the pockets of Murdoch etc.

agreed with the lowering sanctioning fees so that the local promoters dont have to pass on the high costs to those who attend.

pay per view however is the old word for 'in app purchase's or 'a la carte' subscription options...thats the future of broadcasting and it wont be going away anything soon.

that said it could be done a whole lot better and Murdoch and crew have no doubt overestimated the correct price point for a niche sport like F1. a races shouldnt cost more than $5-6 per race imo (so basically the price to rent a new release movie on itunes) and with it should come the freedom to watch on your platform of choice. if you want the additional quali and/or pre and post race coverage then you pay a bit more or even offer a season pass for a better discount. point being is that people want and need choice.

F1 in India for example failed...100mil tvs vs 900mil cell phones so i wonder why. of course that cell phone group is at different levels of data connection etc and most dont have the money to pay for subscriptions but then advertiser subsided subscription models come into play. point is how is FOM going to reach an audience if they dont even communicate via the same medium as their audience does?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecom...stics_in_India

fantastic race yesterday and great season so far but now there is a three week break and there will be nothing.

for the next three weeks every race of this season should be made available free online so people who havent seen it have the ability to catch up. fill the void.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

All Bernie and CVC want to see is lots of $$$$$$$$ they don't seem to care about anything else. I suspect when they eventually sell F1 to somebody else it will need a major rebuild to get it back to where it should be.

by not embracing digital media i cant imagine how much money they are failing to make.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

by not embracing digital media i cant imagine how much money they are failing to make.

Though apparently Bernie doesn't want to bother with digital media because he can't make any money from it...?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

http://www.f1times.co.uk/news/display/09159

It is said that Formula One considers the introduction of success balast. This cannot be true! I am really getting sick and tired of the artificial regulations. They are not a part of the solution but a part of the problem!

I'm for success ballast in connection with very open technical rules, where you could have a Colin Chapman type lapping the field and if you get too much of that, you could lose the whole series. In the current, over-restricted version of F1, it would be just plain stupid.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I'm for success ballast in connection with very open technical rules, where you could have a Colin Chapman type lapping the field and if you get too much of that, you could lose the whole series. In the current, over-restricted version of F1, it would be just plain stupid.

I can see driver's being given grid penalties because the success ballast was just a ''little'' underweight.

F1 doesn't need it and it's not what F1's about.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I can see driver's being given grid penalties because the success ballast was just a ''little'' underweight.

F1 doesn't need it and it's not what F1's about.

Some here think one team frequently lapping the field would be to the detriment of the sport and the other teams would leave.

I say we had that and the sport did just fine, but maybe times have changed.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Some here think one team frequently lapping the field would be to the detriment of the sport and the other teams would leave.

I say we had that and the sport did just fine, but maybe times have changed.

I've seen this happen in F1 before, throughout the years I've followed the sport but success ballast isn't the answer, it's artificial and there's enough of that in F1 already.

I think the answer is to let the formula be less restrictive and give designers more freedom but then the problem is one of keeping within the budget, so make budget that less restrictive. I'm sure a big multi-national like Shell would like to see a vast improvement in Ferrari's fortunes by giving them an R&D injection.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I've seen this happen in F1 before, throughout the years I've followed the sport but success ballast isn't the answer, it's artificial and there's enough of that in F1 already.

I think the answer is to let the formula be less restrictive and give designers more freedom but then the problem is one of keeping within the budget, so make budget that less restrictive. I'm sure a big multi-national like Shell would like to see a vast improvement in Ferrari's fortunes by giving them an R&D injection.

So what do you do if a team consistently wins by a lap?

Maybe it's a change in the fanbase, but in the 1960's & 1970's the fans would say "Wow!, that team really has it figured out. My team needs to knuckle down and get it figured out too." But now, if a team wins five races in a row, it's a big controversy.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I'm for success ballast in connection with very open technical rules, where you could have a Colin Chapman type lapping the field and if you get too much of that, you could lose the whole series. In the current, over-restricted version of F1, it would be just plain stupid.

The only team to win a race by a lap, was McLaren during the 1998 Australian Grand Prix. That domination lasted one race only and that very season came to an exciting finale.
In the past Formula One had teams to dominate the entire season. One could remember Lotus (1978), McLaren (1984, 1988), Williams (1992) and Ferrari (2002, 2004). Dominations always came to an end and usually allowed for interesting races and battles for the championship.

It is inherent to the competitive character of any sport that a participant can dominate. Therefore fairness demands that winning should be no ground for penalties.

[Greem]

"But now, if a team wins five races in a row, it's a big controversy."

We're told it's a big controversy. Artificiality, for what it's worth (and I've said before what I think about that word) isn't restricted to the technicalities, engineering & racing.

The media have a *lot* to answer for. Not least picking up on the tiniest dissatisfaction and blowing it out of all proportion, just to suit their own sales figures.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Greem

"But now, if a team wins five races in a row, it's a big controversy."

We're told it's a big controversy. Artificiality, for what it's worth (and I've said before what I think about that word) isn't restricted to the technicalities, engineering & racing.

The media have a *lot* to answer for. Not least picking up on the tiniest dissatisfaction and blowing it out of all proportion, just to suit their own sales figures.

Paper never refused ink or digital equivalent.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

So what do you do if a team consistently wins by a lap?

Maybe it's a change in the fanbase, but in the 1960's & 1970's the fans would say "Wow!, that team really has it figured out. My team needs to knuckle down and get it figured out too." But now, if a team wins five races in a row, it's a big controversy.

The problem miatanut is that the rules against testing and development are so restrictive that there is no chance of sorting out design flaws in cars.
Everything is set in concrete, so the leading team's advantage is guaranteed for the whole season, nobody wants to watch that!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The only team to win a race by a lap, was McLaren during the 1998 Australian Grand Prix. That domination lasted one race only and that very season came to an exciting finale.
In the past Formula One had teams to dominate the entire season. One could remember Lotus (1978), McLaren (1984, 1988), Williams (1992) and Ferrari (2002, 2004). Dominations always came to an end and usually allowed for interesting races and battles for the championship.

It is inherent to the competitive character of any sport that a participant can dominate. Therefore fairness demands that winning should be no ground for penalties.

http://www.4mula1.ro/history/year/19...montjuich_park
http://www.4mula1.ro/history/year/19...ck/silverstone
1 & 2 close, then not so:
http://www.4mula1.ro/history/year/19...k/watkins_glen
http://www.4mula1.ro/history/year/1970/track/jarama

It wasn't unusual for the track to be quiet between cars at the finish line.

I agree that it is unlikely that under fairly open technical rules, one team would consistently win by a wide margin, but it is a concern of some here that it could happen, and I think it would make good sense to have a system to ensure everybody else didn't pack-up and go home. Maybe the ballast would be based on winning margin, and then the winner would try to make it appear closer than it was, to reduce their ballast penalty, and the fans would like that better.

I'm arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, because success ballast would be completely stupid under the current situation, and I would only see a potential use for it under a very open technical rules scenario, where one team could potentially find a huge advantage.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wnut

The problem miatanut is that the rules against testing and development are so restrictive that there is no chance of sorting out design flaws in cars.
Everything is set in concrete, so the leading team's advantage is guaranteed for the whole season, nobody wants to watch that!

Agreed! The current system is completely upside down.

More rules aimed at preserving the status quo. A dynamic competitive environment is SO inconvenient!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by miatanut

So what do you do if a team consistently wins by a lap?

Maybe it's a change in the fanbase, but in the 1960's & 1970's the fans would say "Wow!, that team really has it figured out. My team needs to knuckle down and get it figured out too." But now, if a team wins five races in a row, it's a big controversy.

The problem is, teams can't figure it out anymore because of the formula restrictions and the budget cap and as soon as one team comes up with an inovating idea, it's pretty much going to be banned by the FIA, so there's a Catch 22.

[wolfhound]

Bernie says the rules need to be looked at to improve the popularity of F1. The rules are not the problem. Its the lack of F1 visibility in new/digital media is a much bigger issue. The others are F1 going behind paywalls on TV and the shear cost of attending a GP. There does not appear to be any real cental marketing of F1 as well.
These can all be placed at Bernie's door rather than the FIA.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns28616.html