How to fix F1?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

The new "F1"....https://airspeeder.com/

I wonder if it will take off?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Purist

I wouldn't expressly limit downforce. I'd actually allow the teams to make it in cleaner ways, and institute a battery of wind tunnel tests, with the requirement of an aggregate minimum L/D, a minimum aerodynamic efficiency, something like, say, 4.0:1. So, if you're making 4,000 lb of downforce, you have to do it in such a way that you make no more than 1,000 lb of drag.

very much agree with your post but follow up question...

in your opinion, what effect would such an approach have for a car following another through a corner?

asking out of curiosity.

Originally Posted by Adam43

I’m no DRS fan (although judging by the last race’s rating a lot of people are ), but one thing it is is a simple solution to a problem.

well i gave the race a 10. if i have a problem with DRS it is that it is automatically initiated in a zone. my personal preference would be for any driver to use it any time they are following another at any point on the track. basically to be used at their own discretion.

in the case of the last race, the moment Max got his nose ahead of Leclerc, Leclerc should have been able to open his flap and try to fight it back...making him wait til the next activation zone and hope that he is still in range seems to defeat the inherent logic of using DRS in this way in the first place.

anyways, i like the idea of the drivers having more tools at their disposal and (aside from the cost issue) i have no problem with movable aero devices, particularity ones where the driver has control of the mechanism.

and as far as movable aero goes, DRS is actually a fairly simple and (i presume) very cheap option...why not even simplify the front wing with a front wing flap also controlled by the driver?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I’m no DRS fan (although judging by the last race’s rating a lot of people are ), but one thing it is is a simple solution to a problem.

DRS can break the monotony sometimes. I wonder if an Indycar style "push to pass" system is not a bad thing to try. I expect the purists would hate it (and I am holding my nose a bit as I type this), but it could improve the racing (and by extension the fan experience) and not be limited it to existing DRS zone definitions and usage rules.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Since IndyCar introduced push to pass in 2009 for road and street courses, they have used two systems. Originally it was the number of pushes per race, 10. However, as of 2017 drivers now get a time allowance of 200 seconds per race, (150 at St. Pete, Detroit and Laguna Seca) so they can abandon a passing attempt mid-flow without wasting additional seconds of boost.

I don't like DRS or push to pass but if I had to choose which to add to the rule book, it would be push to pass, as it is at the driver's discretion when to use it.

[S griffin]

DRS has been overcomplicated on where to use and how long to use it for. You don’t see that with P2P

[midgetman]

>>>>>I wouldn't expressly limit downforce. I'd actually allow the teams to make it in cleaner ways, and institute a battery of wind tunnel tests, with the requirement of an aggregate minimum L/D, a minimum aerodynamic efficiency, something like, say, 4.0:1. So, if you're making 4,000 lb of downforce, you have to do it in such a way that you make no more than 1,000 lb of drag.

And how do you police that? Do you get to the situation like the Manthey car at the N24 - disqualified two weeks after the race? What about appeal?

Rules and punishment should be easy to enforce and transparent IMO.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[wnut]

Originally Posted by midgetman

>>>>>I wouldn't expressly limit downforce. I'd actually allow the teams to make it in cleaner ways, and institute a battery of wind tunnel tests, with the requirement of an aggregate minimum L/D, a minimum aerodynamic efficiency, something like, say, 4.0:1. So, if you're making 4,000 lb of downforce, you have to do it in such a way that you make no more than 1,000 lb of drag.

And how do you police that? Do you get to the situation like the Manthey car at the N24 - disqualified two weeks after the race? What about appeal?

Rules and punishment should be easy to enforce and transparent IMO.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Or you could simply specify the wing profile limit them to a chord of 150mm and a span of 1000mm and specify that the upper surface of any body part exposed to the wind has to be convex.
Do your worst gentlemen and enforce the spirit of the regulations anytime somebody gets out of hand.

This is however not what the big teams want.

[Purist]

How do the scrutineers police anything? The teams are developing all sorts of components throughout the season, and yet we're not seeing cars being thrown out left and right. Obviously, there are procedures in place to work that out; there's no reason to think this would be particularly different.

As to DRS, it was clearly created for the purpose of promoting overtaking. Yes, it sometimes gets used incidentally as a defense, but that's not the intended goal. If the other driver could just use it on discretion, the car with the engine with more pull would always win, like what happened before DRS, unless one car had a real aero advantage, always quallfied out front, and then always just pulled away in the opening laps while everyone else was mired in squabbles.

Chillibowl, the drag produced by the leading car is felt by the trailing car as wake turbulence. So it drag is reduced, things should improve for the following car.

Given the amount that just the drag of these cars on its own will decelerate them when the driver isn't on the throttle (more than 1 g of force), the current L/D figures for the various F1 cars must be comparatively abysmal. Forget about 4.0:1 on the current F1 cars, I wonder if they're in the 1.0-1.5:1 range at 150-200 mph, and that might even be a tad optimistic for some.

For reference, Penske's 2001 CART contender in superspeedway trim had an L/D of 1.05:1 at 230 mph. At the other end, an engineer from Swift told me that the then Formula Nippon car was in the neighborhood of 4.0:1; I think this was probably the last generation before the Dallara SF14. And even if Super Formula isn't quite as good as that right now, the SF19 appears to race quite well.

Thank you, wnut, for that particular aero suggestion.

I know it's mostly Prototype Sportscars, but this listing may be useful to some:
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/data.html

[Armco Bender]

Actually theres really not a lot wrong with F1.
The main problem I think it was once the pinnacle of all motorsport and all other classes ranked below it.
But now days so many other classes of motor racing are running shows as good or even better,so that F1 has become lost in the clutter.
What was huge audience support for F1 has now become dispersed over a wide range range of motorsport classes.
May be they need to have a good look at how they present the sport as an entainment package.
I heard the other day a new Millennial of the You Tube generation has an attention span of only 2-3 minutes.
Maybe shorter sprint races instead of long drawn out races?.

[coppice]

Totally disagree - it used to be at the pinnacle of motor sport but part of it . Not any more , as, in the eyes of most of its adoring , but ignorant , fan base F1 is synonymous with motorsport .



I don't see it as some talent show duking it out with other talent shows , even though , tragically, that is close to the truth if you take a cynical (or maybe even dispassionate) stance by regarding the bottom line as everything .



Motor sport is a broad church , and has many sub cults , from drag racing to rallying , from speed hillclimbs to historic and modern racing . I watch all-live - and it is all part of the continuum so far as I'm concerned .

Where the wheels came off F1 is allowing the TV tail to wave the sport's dog ,and get rich quick huxsters like ...well , you know who I mean ..to annex a sport and then squeeze it for every bloody penny .

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by coppice

Where the wheels came off F1 is allowing the TV tail to wave the sport's dog and get rich quick huxsters like ...well, you know who I mean ..to annex a sport and then squeeze it for every bloody penny .

Nail and hammer.

[P38 in workshop]

i have just skimmed through Peter Wright's thoughts on the topic of fixing F1. Given his extensive involvement over many years he has to be taken seriously and I suggest everybody with an interest in the topic seeks out the article. I admit to grinning when I got to the part about 18 inch wheels.I thought it was obvious that they are being adopted to disguise the vast size of the current crop of cars.Opinions on this may differ.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by coppice

Where the wheels came off F1 is allowing the TV tail to wave the sport's dog ,and get rich quick huxsters like ...well , you know who I mean ..to annex a sport and then squeeze it for every bloody penny .

I would agree that is a good place to start. I don't know the full history, but I can envision that "F1" as a business probably has a sweet spot that would have it being much smaller (as a business) than it is today. In that it's not expected to create a "large" amount of revenue and profit for shareholders, but could still be profitable.

I would say it went sideways when Ecclestone got commercial rights and later when he solidified control with the broadcast rights. I am not saying he didn't bring improvements, but to be clear... It was about extracting money from F1 and making himself exceedingly rich. F1 was (and still is) treated like an ocean full of fish just to be pulled from the water and sold. I think we are now seeing that the ocean is not limitless.

It's much to late to fix this issue, but the goal of the business entity should not be to make large amounts of money, but rather to promote the sport. Be the glue that brings participants and fans together. If funding for teams is driven by sponsorship, then help facilitate that by getting the sponsors logos, etc. in front of as many eyeballs as possible. That the fans should not be significant direct profit centers for "F1". Sure promoters need to make money, etc. from ticket sales, but F1 itself, should not be a big business.

However F1 (via FOM) is a for profit entity that values growth and profit above all else. The goal is to squeeze everyone involved as much as possible. Efforts today is just to try to address what is looking to be a stagnant business with the goal to protect revenue.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by coppice

Where the wheels came off F1 is allowing the TV tail to wave the sport's dog ,and get rich quick huxsters like ...well , you know who I mean ..to annex a sport and then squeeze it for every bloody penny .

yeah i tend to agree with this and also think its a problem for most sports...sale of TV rights, move behind the paywall, need for more exclusive content etc has changed the relationship between a league and its fans.

essentially leagues (to varying degrees) used to make money directly from the fans. now they make the majority of their money from the TV companies so in effect the TV companies are now their number 1 customer.

the irony now i suppose is that it is actually a TV/content company that now owns F1 and they have to deal with both creating content and making that content appealing enough to sell on to a wider audience...no more middle man to hide behind.

anyways, making it cheaper and more accessible would be a good way to start!

[coppice]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I would agree that is a good place to start. I don't know the full history, but I can envision that "F1" as a business probably has a sweet spot that would have it being much smaller (as a business) than it is today. In that it's not expected to create a "large" amount of revenue and profit for shareholders, but could still be profitable.

I would say it went sideways when Ecclestone got commercial rights and later when he solidified control with the broadcast rights. I am not saying he didn't bring improvements, but to be clear... It was about extracting money from F1 and making himself exceedingly rich. F1 was (and still is) treated like an ocean full of fish just to be pulled from the water and sold. I think we are now seeing that the ocean is not limitless.

It's much to late to fix this issue, but the goal of the business entity should not be to make large amounts of money, but rather to promote the sport. Be the glue that brings participants and fans together. If funding for teams is driven by sponsorship, then help facilitate that by getting the sponsors logos, etc. in front of as many eyeballs as possible. That the fans should not be significant direct profit centers for "F1". Sure promoters need to make money, etc. from ticket sales, but F1 itself, should not be a big business.

However F1 (via FOM) is a for profit entity that values growth and profit above all else. The goal is to squeeze everyone involved as much as possible. Efforts today is just to try to address what is looking to be a stagnant business with the goal to protect revenue.

Richard

With respect, you are still looking at the question as if motor racing should be just a business , and that the balance sheet is all. It needs to be run in a businesslike way to survive , but for decades it has been a cash cow milked dry by Ecclestone and his cohorts .



I despair when I read posts , sounding like a speech from The Apprentice , about how F1 needs to penetrate new territories and similar guff . It is Emperor's New Clothes stuff - F 1 isn't remotely interested in where it goes as long as the host can cough up the going rate . That's why we have races in silly places like Bahrain and Azerbaijan but not a single race in the entire continent of Africa. Ironically we did have a South African GP in the apartheid era - until Renault had a long overdue attack of conscience

- but not one since Mandela.

[S griffin]

Well there has been talk of going back to South Africa and Kyalami. Of course we don't yet know which GPs will be on the calendar for next season. The Dutch GP is meant to be back and we're supposed to have a Vietnam GP. We'll see how many survive

[coppice]

So , in what passes for reality in F1 world, despite many Dutch and Scandinavian drivers there has been no Dutch GP since 85 (I was there ) , no Swedish race since '78 ; and we have never had a Finnish , Danish or Norwegian GP .



But yeah , a race in Vietnam - may the bells ring out joyfully . A country famed for no motorsport heritage at all, ever , and for being royally shafted by first France and then the USA and ..err.. that's it .

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by coppice

With respect, you are still looking at the question as if motor racing should be just a business , and that the balance sheet is all. It needs to be run in a businesslike way to survive , but for decades it has been a cash cow milked dry by Ecclestone and his cohorts .

Please reread my post. I think you somehow missed what I thought was my clear point that racing should NOT be run like a big business. That one of the problems is that it IS run that way. On this point we may be in violent agreement?

Richard

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by coppice

So , in what passes for reality in F1 world, despite many Dutch and Scandinavian drivers there has been no Dutch GP since 85 (I was there ) , no Swedish race since '78 ; and we have never had a Finnish , Danish or Norwegian GP .



But yeah , a race in Vietnam - may the bells ring out joyfully . A country famed for no motorsport heritage at all, ever , and for being royally shafted by first France and then the USA and ..err.. that's it .

And no GP in NZ, despite us having a world champion in Hulme from there, as well as McLaren and Amon

Mind you some might say there is a Finnish GP on the calendar, despite it being in Budapest...

[Peter Mallett]

Siverstone has been announced for the next five years. The bluff appears to have worked.

[bjohnsonsmith]

There wasn't an alternative.

[S griffin]

Great news for F1, would have been a travesty if we lost the British GP

[coppice]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Please reread my post. I think you somehow missed what I thought was my clear point that racing should NOT be run like a big business. That one of the problems is that it IS run that way. On this point we may be in violent agreement?

Richard

Indeed - have a beer on me

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I would agree that is a good place to start. I don't know the full history, but I can envision that "F1" as a business probably has a sweet spot that would have it being much smaller (as a business) than it is today. In that it's not expected to create a "large" amount of revenue and profit for shareholders, but could still be profitable.

I would say it went sideways when Ecclestone got commercial rights and later when he solidified control with the broadcast rights. I am not saying he didn't bring improvements, but to be clear... It was about extracting money from F1 and making himself exceedingly rich. F1 was (and still is) treated like an ocean full of fish just to be pulled from the water and sold. I think we are now seeing that the ocean is not limitless.

It's much to late to fix this issue, but the goal of the business entity should not be to make large amounts of money, but rather to promote the sport. Be the glue that brings participants and fans together. If funding for teams is driven by sponsorship, then help facilitate that by getting the sponsors logos, etc. in front of as many eyeballs as possible. That the fans should not be significant direct profit centers for "F1". Sure promoters need to make money, etc. from ticket sales, but F1 itself, should not be a big business.

However F1 (via FOM) is a for profit entity that values growth and profit above all else. The goal is to squeeze everyone involved as much as possible. Efforts today is just to try to address what is looking to be a stagnant business with the goal to protect revenue.

Richard

I think a single word covers what has happened to F1 and in fact all professional sport....GREED.

[Anyopenroad]

Silverstone saw the two Mercs qualify 1-2 then drive off unchallenged into the distance, the battle for the lead over after 4 laps. Red Bull and Ferrari took the next three positions and that would have been the next four but for a silly mistake.

Yet it is being lauded pretty much across the board as a very good race, following on from another good race in Austria.

So what's the problem we're trying to "fix" again?