|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
9 Mar 2005, 05:56 (Ref:1247372) | #101 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 903
|
from someone who was there - well said Phil.
|
||
|
9 Mar 2005, 06:11 (Ref:1247380) | #102 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 208
|
Just to clarify, Phil hasn't put his name to the opinion piece. It was just titled "MNews says". Make of that what you will...could have been Jo Saward, Phil or a group of the journos. Many of whom are (like myself and many fans at present) completely jacked off with the way this once great sport has self imploded in recent times.
|
||
__________________
Adelaide is the world's best street circut. |
9 Mar 2005, 06:18 (Ref:1247381) | #103 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 16,661
|
On the flipside - Formula One is more popular than ever...
|
|
|
9 Mar 2005, 06:26 (Ref:1247386) | #104 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5,917
|
Quote:"spot on I agree. We need to get rid of the dictatorship and Ferrari favouring political infighting."
I agree with you that F1 should stop meddling aimlessly with their rule changes, qualifying, regulations...the instability of which is bad...the worsening effect the new rules cause are worse. But i disagree with you about "ferrari-favouring". A huge part of recent regulatory changes are done either to directly compromise Ferrari (ie change of points system), or indirectly because of stopping Ferrari (qualifying is constantly tweaked and race regulations changed for the purpose of "spicing up the show" because critics claim Ferrari's dominance is killing the show). What i must agree with the article is that i do not like the route that Formula One is taking - which is the artificial means to influence the sports. Formula One is not WWF..where we have a script to run a nice show. So what if Formula One has a dominant winner? Keep to the same regulation and not have a knee-jerk reaction..because any ill-planned changes will only ruin the credibility of Formula One as the pinnacle of motorsports. And the politics. I don't give half a damn if there are the politics. All sports have it. But what i think Formula One (and teams involved) has a responsibility to do is not to air the dirty politics in the open. At least keep 99% out of the media/fans so as not to corrupt Formula One as a sports instead of a political battle ground. I hope ALL teams would learn from Stoddart what not to do, as it basically bring sports into disrepute. Similarly, FIA should have a more independent and detached decision making process. They are there to regulate, not to film a movie. |
||
__________________
Alonso: "McLaren and Williams are also great racing teams, but Ferrari is the biggest one that you can go to." |
9 Mar 2005, 06:38 (Ref:1247390) | #105 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 61
|
Wouldn't a cap on spending and testing be a better way of bringing Ferrari back to the field.Isn't it because of the amount of funds they have available made them what they are?Each team 50 million each no more, drivers costs not included may the smartest hardest working team win and not the richest.
|
||
__________________
[I]I am only posting so I can have an avatar.[/I] |
9 Mar 2005, 07:08 (Ref:1247402) | #106 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 208
|
K-B. Yes F1 is popular at present. Why? It has a lot to do with the increased involvement of the manufacturers in recent years, pouring billions of their global marketing budgets into the sport. This coupled with the growth of new medias and the pushing of the sport, on a business level in particular, into new markets has seen so many more people exposed to F1. Naturally the sport is going to be more popular if more people are aware of it.
The real issue lies, as GTR touched on, in the credibility of the sport. It’s loosing it hand over fist. For those whom have followed the F1 over the years, thru whoever happens to be dominating, it is sad to see the things that made this F1 one of the most exciting and enjoyable sports in the world to watch get eroded away. Take qualifying as an example. There was nothing overtly wrong with the hour system. 12 laps, balls out, low fuel. The fastest bloke would end up on pole. Simple. Then single lap qualifying...on race fuel...what a joke. Now we have aggregated qualifying!!! Anyone would think that the FIA are moving into stand-up comedy! |
||
__________________
Adelaide is the world's best street circut. |
9 Mar 2005, 07:13 (Ref:1247404) | #107 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,811
|
The F1 fraternity tried to voluntarily limit testing over the winter break - only to have Ferrari refuse to agree to it.
The trouble is that Formula One is perceived as being the pinnacle of technical innovation, and for a long time it has been such a pinnacle. Once you begin tinkering with rules to limit in any effective manner what the competitors might do, then you run the risk of ruining that perception, and for some that is the true attraction of Formula One. |
||
__________________
"Brakes are no good. They only make you go slower." - Tazio Nuvolari |
9 Mar 2005, 07:17 (Ref:1247406) | #108 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,811
|
Quote:
The problem for Formula One's qualifying system is that there are few teams who can properly compete. If there were more competitive teams on the grid, then I would be in favour of a V8 Supercar-style hour of free-for-all qualifying (with limitations on what the teams can do with their cars in terms of specialising them) then followed by a top-ten shoot-out to determine pole position. |
|||
__________________
"Brakes are no good. They only make you go slower." - Tazio Nuvolari |
9 Mar 2005, 08:10 (Ref:1247426) | #109 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,540
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
9 Mar 2005, 08:52 (Ref:1247455) | #110 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,024
|
Big Mac's Australian Motorsport News Comment is a media comment that fits the new rules thread perfectly. Merged. Thanks
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
9 Mar 2005, 10:45 (Ref:1247541) | #111 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 5,917
|
markysjag.. i think many fans are misled into thinking that what made Ferrari superior (or any other teams for that matter) is (i) amount of funds (ii) testing.
Look at the past few years and you'd realise that if FIA works purely on this two factors, they'd barely help improve the show. Ferrari's budget isn't significantly greater than the likes of Toyota and Mclaren. And in recent years, Ferrari's testing mileage is not the top of the list. It is in fact usually hogged by Mclaren, while Williams does similar level of testing as Ferrari (in fact more over the winter season). But what does that achieve? Dixie, i'd like to inform you that Ferrari did not refuse to cut track testing, but rather they have their own opinion on how testing ought to be cut. IMO, i have read and thought about on the current engine rule, and i believe that there is a better way than what we have now. (1) Team can use a new engine from qualifying and race. However, that engine is to be used for Friday and Saturday Practice session of the following race. If an engine blows, then the team has no choice but to sit out of the practice session (this could see some top teams end up at the mid-field in qualifyings). If a team crashes in qualifying and damage the new engine, they are either forced to retire (DNQ) or use the engine they had from the previous race. (2) Each car is limited to a practice engine, which is to be used for 4-race worth of practice sessions. A blown engine in one of the practice sessions meant that the driver have to sit out of the remaining practice sessions. However, each car is entitled an engine per race(qualifying and race). This two ideas would be better as it does not create controversy as what BAR had done in Melbourne, and doesn't hurt the RACE itself as teams do not have to worry about another race. It also ensure all teams start on a level field (everybody use a new engine), while the regulations which affect the practice sessions would not confuse casual fans who only follow qualifying/race, while easily understood by any fan who are interested to find out more. Formula One is technically a complex sports, but it shouldn't make it more complicated for casual fans to follow on the TV, which doesn't usually explain how the complex regulations work. Take a leaf out of games such as Grand Prix 4 and Gran Turismo 4. Hardcore enough for the enthusiast...but casual enough to be watched by anyone. And maintain the credibility of the sports. Do NOT change regulations just as a reaction to domination. Stability of regulations would nurture more loyal followers of Formula One who could understand the beauty of the whole game. |
||
__________________
Alonso: "McLaren and Williams are also great racing teams, but Ferrari is the biggest one that you can go to." |
9 Mar 2005, 11:20 (Ref:1247568) | #112 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 208
|
Due to the thread merge (and my lack of experience!!) the full text of the Motorsport News comment has been cut my the mods but it can be found here:
www.mnews.com.au |
||
__________________
Adelaide is the world's best street circut. |
9 Mar 2005, 11:21 (Ref:1247569) | #113 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,024
|
Thanks Big mac
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
9 Mar 2005, 15:15 (Ref:1247773) | #114 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Well, the problem of the old qualifying system as used before 2003 was also caused by the FIA. The motor sport authority introduced a limit of 12 laps. Drivers didn't get out, because they didn't want to waste any lap.
What the FIA should have done was easy. First, it had to abolish the limit of 12 laps. Second, the FIA should have introduced an unlimited amount of the qualifying tyres. Last edited by Pingguest; 9 Mar 2005 at 15:20. |
||
|
9 Mar 2005, 16:00 (Ref:1247837) | #115 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 16,661
|
Pingguest - that suggestion shows an ignorance of why qualifying tyres and unlimited laps were banned in the first place.
|
|
|
9 Mar 2005, 19:04 (Ref:1248013) | #116 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
All they need to do is make sure that each car does 1 lap(whatever the weather)in each 15 minute period.
And to make sure that all the flying laps are commited ones,the driver with the lowest aggregate time gets pole. I know we don't like aggregate times but it's the only way you will get the drivers to commit to 4 fast laps. |
|
|
9 Mar 2005, 19:19 (Ref:1248030) | #117 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
And as far as I know, the FIA introduced the limit of 12 laps to make it drivers impossible to block others intentional. But for that problems other solutions would have been better. |
|||
|
9 Mar 2005, 19:35 (Ref:1248043) | #118 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 16,661
|
Qualifying tyres were banned primarily on safety grounds.
|
|
|
9 Mar 2005, 20:00 (Ref:1248058) | #119 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
9 Mar 2005, 21:07 (Ref:1248095) | #120 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,744
|
I'm glad some people see it the way I do and can get past the minor issues of qualifying and can see that there are much bigger problems with the new regs. The racing and ability to pass has gotten progressive better over the last couple of years (until now) because the tires have gotten a LOT stickier. In the past few years the cars have gotten like 10 seconds a lap faster than before, primarly due to the tires.
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
No Rotor, No Motor. |
9 Mar 2005, 22:06 (Ref:1248141) | #121 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,024
|
Good point about clawing back aero grip. Generally though I still wouldn't like to say which has had the biggest relative loss. I guess I'd plump for tyres though.
Also we should be a little careful of using Melborne as an example. A one off with the corners that are not ideal for overtaking. Although maybe that is an idication of the problem! Everyone knows the mechanical/aero (indeed type of aero too) conundrum. Generally I go along with it too, but lets go away and get everyone to agree on how to reduce it and when! Last edited by Adam43; 9 Mar 2005 at 22:06. |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
9 Mar 2005, 22:48 (Ref:1248166) | #122 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 670
|
I thought the one-lap idea was pretty good in 2003 - a session on Friday and a session on Saturday. Why did they change it for 2004? Having both sessions beside each other just made everyone ignore the first. And why did they change it again this year? Having the final session on Sunday means few people get to see it at all.
|
||
__________________
"Meet me at the racetrack, Jack." |
9 Mar 2005, 22:53 (Ref:1248172) | #123 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,479
|
I fully understand the mechanical/aero ratio thing, but I think the FIA are going about it all wrong. We should be moving the sport forward, not dumbing it down. Let me explain...
The race long tyres have definitely lost mechanical grip, probably more than when grooves were introduced (which are no longer required). This is a good thing. The harder compound tyres don't shed bucket fulls of marbles on every bit of the track except the racing line. That makes it much more likely drivers can use different parts of the track to overtake. You may have noted that MB commented on just that during the Melbourne race. It's been argued by many, including Damon Hill, that you need more mechanical grip than aero or you can't get close enough to another car in a bend to pass them on the following straight. The problem is that this is true only if you think only in tems of the stupidly limiting rules on aerodynamics. This is where the dumbing down is creeping in. I mean, what's the point in teams spending zillions on wind tunnels and aero experts, just to tune a few percent out of a virtually standard set wings and bodywork? Might be rocket science, but it ain't gonna lead to anything radical What we need is Active Aero. Then all those clever engineers will soon sort out how to make those hard tyres stick like glue half way round a slow bend then let them fly down the straights. And if that pulls the lap times down too much, only let them have one set of tyres for the whole weekend. Even cleaner track! And please don't tell me that the smaller teams couldn't afford to compete, because I firmly believe that the systematic tightening of the rules squeezes out the chances of a small team inovating their way up the grid rather than just having to spend the whole budget fine tuning an undertray to gain 2% more downforce. Neither do I think it would be dangerous so long as a reasonable set of limits for structural strength and projections were introduced. The only reason I can see that the FIA wouldn't go active aero is that there's a risk that Paul Stoddart might, just might, have more ingenious engineers than Ferrari or McLaren. And that might just rock their boat way too much. Last edited by dtype38; 9 Mar 2005 at 22:54. |
||
|
9 Mar 2005, 23:02 (Ref:1248181) | #124 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,293
|
As I have said all along, the simpler you make the aero, the less gains you get from it through developement.
They should keep the current tyres, there is nothing wrong with them as such. But what they STILL need to do is make a massive slash in downforce (around 70%), this has been the case for years and years, but especially post 1998. Although I would love to see slicks and wide rear tyres return. Actually I approximate that the downforce produced by the cars is around the 1000Kg mark, it might be more, it might be less, but it has to be at least 600Kg as everyone says that an F1 car could drive upside down - an F1 car weighs 600Kg etc. So I say, slash the aero so the cars are only producing 250Kg of downforce, using the most racing - friendly methods possible. |
||
|
9 Mar 2005, 23:22 (Ref:1248196) | #125 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,479
|
Monster...
Much as I agree with your logic and sympathise with the idea, I think it would do nothing for the quality of F1. I think if you limit the downforce available to some arbitary figure, say 250kg, then you may as well just issue a standard set of wings and bodywork that give that figure and let the cars compete on driver ability and engine power. But then it logically follows that engine power should be limited as well, to say 800hp so that overtaking comes down to just setup and driver ability. I completely agree that it would make for a genuine "driver" championship. Trouble is that I think that a) it would be processional because the cars would be so similar that the worlds best drivers could keep them on the limit all of the time, and b) that there are any number of similarly controlled formulae out there. So F1 wouldn't be anything special at all! My argument is that F1 should be special because it pushes the limits of racing car design, not the accuracy of the calibration of a wind tunnel. It should have cars with different strengths and weaknesses, not just a homogenous mass all circulating a the same (if incredibly high) speed. All hail the days of ground effect when cars could go round corners faster than straight lines |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What Changes Should Supercar Make To Series Rules? (merged) | Hapul | Australasian Touring Cars. | 28 | 8 Nov 2004 10:03 |
Ecclestone Rules Out British GP and sues JYS! (merged) | PaulSands | Formula One | 98 | 22 Oct 2004 14:31 |
Max Mosley's plans for F1/2008 rules (merged)..... | Super Tourer | Formula One | 74 | 1 May 2004 16:38 |
The Reido Rules Controversy thread | Reido Rules | Touring Car Racing | 27 | 17 Sep 2003 17:12 |
The FIA rules / ..find the rule Ferrari broke [merged] | zealot | Formula One | 78 | 15 May 2002 16:45 |