How to fix F1?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Maybe there ought to be a team of FIA auditors checking accounts and if discrepancies are found with regard to the cost cap the punishment would be to lose a couple of aerodynamic appendages.

a very creative solution!

[Peter Mallett]

Alternative a horse's head in the bed would have more impact.

[S griffin]

F1 didn’t start broadcasting full time in the UK till 78. Back then though sport was more important than the show, so it didn’t need to worry too much about the viewing figures

At the end of the day though football has had a few changes here and there, but the fundamentals are still the same. Still same length of matches and same number of players. And the odd dull 0-0 draw is accepted now and again. People still watch because it’s easy to understand, even with the offside rule. That’s F1 needs to do, keep things simple and don’t go for radical things. The fanbase will still be there

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by S griffin

At the end of the day though football has had a few changes here and there, but the fundamentals are still the same. Still same length of matches and same number of players. And the odd dull 0-0 draw is accepted now and again. People still watch because it’s easy to understand, even with the offside rule. That’s F1 needs to do, keep things simple and don’t go for radical things. The fanbase will still be there

have you ever played soccer with an old soccer ball from the 70s?

i tried once and nearly broke my foot. i honestly dont know how anyone played sports in the past.

the game is not the same imo and has not been the same for a very long time.

im not going to say that we have it easier today (the challenge is just different), but surely there was a difficulty and uncertainty to previous era competitions that many of us (i suppose those of us who did not live through it first hand) would like to see replicated today.

imo, you are looking at this thread/our suggestions as us trying to change something you love but we love it too and i think if you genuinely look at the ideas/changes being presented they mainly focus on bringing back those intangibles of the past.

at the end of the day we love motorsports...although in fairness i may love talking about it more then i love watching it!

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

have you ever played soccer with an old soccer ball from the 70s?

i tried once and nearly broke my foot. i honestly dont know how anyone played sports in the past.

the game is not the same imo and has not been the same for a very long time.

im not going to say that we have it easier today (the challenge is just different), but surely there was a difficulty and uncertainty to previous era competitions that many of us (i suppose those of us who did not live through it first hand) would like to see replicated today.

imo, you are looking at this thread/our suggestions as us trying to change something you love but we love it too and i think if you genuinely look at the ideas/changes being presented they mainly focus on bringing back those intangibles of the past.

at the end of the day we love motorsports...although in fairness i may love talking about it more then i love watching it!

Oh so you got extra points for kicking a football in the 70s?

Completely missed the point of my post. Using the soccer ball analogy, yes technology has moved on in every sport, but in most of them the fundamentals are the same, which is what I’m talking about. Never said anything about soccer balls.

My point is that if you look back at old sporting events like football or tennis, you’d see it was still up to the best team to score the most goals or sets or whatever. You’d see apart from the fashion, technology or state of the court or pitch, the main things haven’t changed. They haven’t needed anything radical to keep it going. F1 shouldn’t need it either, it just needs simple rules, with cars that can race each other and still the cream will rise to the top

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by S griffin

They haven’t needed anything radical to keep it going. F1 shouldn’t need it either, it just needs simple rules, with cars that can race each other and still the cream will rise to the top

personally i think a point about equipment changing over time is a very apt analogy for motorsports and in perfect keeping with the point of this thread.

also in my humble opinion i think much of the technological advances that F1 has seen over the years is absolutely radical.

anyways no one is suggesting the fundamental nature of a race change, no one is saying that the slowest car should win, and no one is saying that they dont want the cream to rise to the top...so i guess i am missing the point of this and your other 140odd posts in this thread.

i like to think i try to keep it friendly and respectful, but if you feel i havent (and it certainly feels that way from the tone of your last few posts), then you have my apologies.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Oh so you got extra points for kicking a football in the 70s?

Completely missed the point of my post. Using the soccer ball analogy, yes technology has moved on in every sport, but in most of them the fundamentals are the same, which is what I’m talking about. Never said anything about soccer balls.

My point is that if you look back at old sporting events like football or tennis, you’d see it was still up to the best team to score the most goals or sets or whatever. You’d see apart from the fashion, technology or state of the court or pitch, the main things haven’t changed. They haven’t needed anything radical to keep it going. F1 shouldn’t need it either, it just needs simple rules, with cars that can race each other and still the cream will rise to the top

Oof.

The fundamentals of F1 are still the same as they've always been, in basic terms - drive faster than everyone else over a set distance. Your argument about fundamentals fails at that point, I'm afraid, and if you want to get into details, look at two sports you mentioned and one that you didn't that are called 'traditional':

Tennis: automated line judges (Hawkeye), appeals against calls, changes in the size of the racket, the type of ball, the colour of clothing. tie-breaks (they didn't used to exist!)

Cricket: this list is almost endless, but... 5-day internationals, 3-day internationals, 1-day internationals, 50 over matches, 20/20 matches, 20/20 tournaments, coloured kit, Hawkeye, appeals, changes to LBW, different coloured balls, playing under lights (gasp!), the third umpire, OVERARM BOWLING (gasp gasp!), Bodyline...

Association football (to distinguish from any other game marketed as "football" ): standardised goal sizes (they weren't once upon a time), limits on width of a pitch, VAR (which is an abomination and a classic case of "we can't use good ideas from elsewhere, they weren't invented here" that prevails in F1), changes to how the goalkeeper can handle the ball, increases in substitutes (1, then 2, then three, then recently 5, now back to 3), magic spray markings, tweaks to the offside rule, changes to the handball rule, changes to penalty kick rules - the list goes on.

So the three mentioned sports aren't perhaps as continual in their rules as you might think; sure, the pitches might not have changed their basic shape, but with each era of the sport they do change things - just like F1.

HOWEVER: what is clear is that in F1 and especially in football, money drives everything. Manchester City and Barcelona are perhaps two of the best examples (and yes, Leicester City are the perfect antidote but that only happened once and we'll not mention Manchester United or I'll end up in the corner weeping gently).

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

personally i think a point about equipment changing over time is a very apt analogy for motorsports and in perfect keeping with the point of this thread.

also in my humble opinion i think much of the technological advances that F1 has seen over the years is absolutely radical.

anyways no one is suggesting the fundamental nature of a race change, no one is saying that the slowest car should win, and no one is saying that they dont want the cream to rise to the top...so i guess i am missing the point of this and your other 140odd posts in this thread.

i like to think i try to keep it friendly and respectful, but if you feel i havent (and it certainly feels that way from the tone of your last few posts), then you have my apologies.

Equipment changing over time is an apt analogy but up to a point. The ball has changed, footwear has changed but the fundamentals of the game haven't changed. There's been the equivalent in F1 with the various technological developments. However, with F1 the fundamentals of F1 have also changed. There are tyre stops, there are now certain parts on the track, where technology can be used to assist in overtaking, DRS. I don't think there is an equivalent in football.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Equipment changing over time is an apt analogy but up to a point. The ball has changed, footwear has changed but the fundamentals of the game haven't changed. There's been the equivalent in F1 with the various technological developments. However, with F1 the fundamentals of F1 have also changed. There are tyre stops, there are now certain parts on the track, where technology can be used to assist in overtaking, DRS. I don't think there is an equivalent in football.

But they haven't changed, really. You're talking about the technology, not the fundamental "go faster than everyone else".

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Greem

But they haven't changed, really. You're talking about the technology, not the fundamental "go faster than everyone else".

Technology in football has changed the ball, from the '70s ball chilli mentioned, that would almost break your foot if you kicked it but that hasn't lead to the equivalent of DRS. DRS is a fundamental change.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Technology in football has changed the ball, from the '70s ball chilli mentioned, that would almost break your foot if you kicked it but that hasn't lead to the equivalent of DRS. DRS is a fundamental change.

I disagree. DRS is a technology change, just like pre-stressed member engines or carbon fibre tubs.

The basic fundamental principle of F1 is to drive about 200 miles faster than all the other competitors. Everything else - every piece of technology, every rule - is secondary to that, which is why they can change so frequently but the basics are the same: drive faster than the others.

The change of ball in footy is the same - the basic fundamental principle is to accumulate more match points than any other team over the course of a season/tournament, or beat everyone you play in a tournament. You could do it in shoes made of blancmange with a uranium ball if the rules allowed that, but they would be secondary to the fundamental principle: score more points than any other team.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Greem

I disagree. DRS is a technology change, just like pre-stressed member engines or carbon fibre tubs.

The basic fundamental principle of F1 is to drive about 200 miles faster than all the other competitors. Everything else - every piece of technology, every rule - is secondary to that, which is why they can change so frequently but the basics are the same: drive faster than the others.

The change of ball in footy is the same - the basic fundamental principle is to accumulate more match points than any other team over the course of a season/tournament, or beat everyone you play in a tournament. You could do it in shoes made of blancmange with a uranium ball if the rules allowed that, but they would be secondary to the fundamental principle: score more points than any other team.

I guess one way to view it would be to imagine you were a fan of the sports in 1960.

If you sat a football fan from 1960 in a premiership ground today, they would recognise the sport they are watching as football. They might ask what the pitch side monitor is for, or wonder why tackles are being penalised, but would not think they were watching a different sport.
Same with F1. Sit a fan at Sochi today and they would recognise the sport as F1. They would ask what rule governs the DRS flap, or why drivers can only move once in the braking zone, but wouldn't think it was a different sport.

To that end, I feel the sport today is fundamentally the same.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by tux

Ive been giving this alot of thought, too much if im honest and ive come to the conclusion that theres no easy answer because of the money and amount of people reliant on F1 for employment. However, here is my idea.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this tux.

I have a few comments.

I like the idea of a commonly available third party chassis + aero. The main problem I see is there is an assumption that this would be somewhat competitive. I think while anyone can make a car to fit the regulations, ensuring it is not sitting on the back row is hard. Same issue applies to the power unit. But, I like the idea. Sadly, to make it work I think those going the path of third party supplier may have to get some other type of boost in performance. And then the problem is that as soon as they start to outperform those who are true constructors, there will be pushback to hobble them. The key issue here is to stop being beholden to the manufactures.

Regarding front/rear suspension, I think the problem we have today is that they are overly mechanical. That these suspensions have become the equivalent of expensive mechanical watches in a world of cheap (and more accurate) quartz watches. Teams jump through more and more hoops to create complex mechanical solutions because better/cheaper solutions are outlawed. My solution would be to allow active suspension, but with a set of standard homologated actuators, sensors and suspension ECU. What would be free is how teams use the sensors and actuators plus the code that implements the software solution.

Lastly, you focus only on the technical side. There remains issues around equitable sharing of money, budget caps, etc. Hopefully the changes that start in 2021/22 will help on that front.

Richard

[hoffman66]

In answer to the original question. Stop watching it, stop paying for it, stop buying merch.

that is the ONLY real way you will being about true change.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Greem

I disagree. DRS is a technology change, just like pre-stressed member engines or carbon fibre tubs.

The basic fundamental principle of F1 is to drive about 200 miles faster than all the other competitors. Everything else - every piece of technology, every rule - is secondary to that, which is why they can change so frequently but the basics are the same: drive faster than the others.

The change of ball in footy is the same - the basic fundamental principle is to accumulate more match points than any other team over the course of a season/tournament, or beat everyone you play in a tournament. You could do it in shoes made of blancmange with a uranium ball if the rules allowed that, but they would be secondary to the fundamental principle: score more points than any other team.

Absolutely. DRS is a technological change and not a new one either; go back to Jim Hall and the Chaparral 2E. Agreed, like any competitive sport, the fundamental principle is to beat the opposition and of course, DRS or anything else can't change that.

When I said DRS is a fundamental change, I meant DRS has brought a fundamental change to the actual racing. The same would go for playing football with blancmange shoes and a uranium ball, it wouldn't change the fundamental principle of football but it will have an impact on how the game is played, which in itself is fundamental.

[S griffin]

Maybe DRS should be left to Cricket

[P38 in workshop]

I wouldn't describe DRS as simply a technological change,although it is.It also represents a profound philosophical change from the era when moveable aerodynamic devices were strictly prohibited.The cause of the reversal of attitude was to do something-anything-to introduce some place changing.In that sense it has succeeded but it must be galling for a driver to know that his near rival will be able to breeze past because of an artificially permitted speed increasing device.


I sometimes wonder if the racing would be more interesting if the precise regulations weren't released until say 250 days prior to the season.Obviously the safety standards would remain the same and the power unit architecture-if not precise specification.Then maybe instead of finely honed concepts rolling out of the transporters we would have cars with a few rough edges and a bit of improvisation between races.A little like the old style Indianapolis when the teams built and refined their cars during the month of May and then they raced them.Perhaps an Open Source/FIA monocoque with provision for Halo and a generous reinforced area for suspension pickups and I recall that they already insist on standard engine mounting locations.Freedom to create nose,engine cover,wings and an underbody limited to two flat planes above the reference plane joined by a radius not exceeding 200mm.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

...but it must be galling for a driver to know that his near rival will be able to breeze past because of an artificially permitted speed increasing device.

50% may dislike it while the other 50 that is doing the passing appreciates it.

DRS has been around for a decade now and while drivers may dislike it i would say its use is now pretty much accepted. Its use in quali is no doubt appreciated but I would say drivers had more of an issue with not being able to pass pre DRS.

From F ducts to S ducts, wings that flex under load, slot wings, holes in the nose to holes in the wings, now DAS...teams have been gaming moveable aero the whole time. i think teams and drivers only have an issue when the other team has a trick they dont have.

Is it a profound shift? Is using the car in front as a tow a profound shift in racing philosophy?

I mean i also wish it was not necessary but it is a fairly simple solution to what was and still is the profound problem of dirty air, overheating tires, and overtaking in the age of aero.

Overall though, would the racing be better if DRS was removed?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

it must be galling for a driver to know that his near rival will be able to breeze past because of an artificially permitted speed increasing device.

I'm not sure I would consider that to be as definite a conclusion.

If the car passing under DRS is a 'near rival', then the car being passed should also be able to use DRS to re-take the place.
If the driver being passed is going to see the rival pull away from them once they get ahead, I would argue that they are not really a 'near' rival, but someone in a faster car.

[S griffin]

No, I agree with P38. It’s the will he or won’t he get past that adds to the excitement of the battle, rather than overtaking just like that. Also the drivers are supposed to be the best of the world, why do they need DRS zones to tell them where to overtake? Drivers can work it out for themselves

Going back to my point about variables, it’s much more fun too to have cars with different strengths and weaknesses, rather than being closely matched in all areas

[wnut]

DRS only got introduced as a result of Abu Dahbi 2010 embarrassment where the leaders of the WDC Alonso and Webber got caught behind Petrov's very slow Renault which was running in 6th place, couldn't pass, finished 7th and 8th, and helped Vettel win an unlikely WDC.

[chillibowl]

that may have been the straw that broke the camels back but i suspect the decision was based on a lot more than that and shirley must have been agreed upon well before the last race of the season preceding its implementation no?

in additions to other movable aero paths, im not sure how different DRS is in 'philosophy' to various push to pass systems, overtake buttons, use of KERS, or boosting engine power via gas or compressed air.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

If the car passing under DRS is a 'near rival', then the car being passed should also be able to use DRS to re-take the place.
If the driver being passed is going to see the rival pull away from them once they get ahead, I would argue that they are not really a 'near' rival, but someone in a faster car.

right!

its typically a faster car taking advantage of DRS as seen by how much of a gap they build up immediately after affecting a DRS overtake. that the faster car could not overtake prior to DRS (dirty air, dirty track), shows that that drivers, despite their skill, were not able to overcome this issue.

because of this i feel like i am becoming a DRS apologist so i've been racking my brain...how often has DRS been solely responsible for a pass for the lead?

im sure it has happened but more often then not the undercut is still the preferred method of passing for the lead?

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by wnut

DRS only got introduced as a result of Abu Dahbi 2010 embarrassment where the leaders of the WDC Alonso and Webber got caught behind Petrov's very slow Renault which was running in 6th place, couldn't pass, finished 7th and 8th, and helped Vettel win an unlikely WDC.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. I hated the fact that Alonso was stuck behind Petrov for many laps, unable to get even close enough to attempt a pass due to the aerodynamics(although Abu Dhabi isn’t a great circuit for passing or spectacle either, but no one seemed to think that at the time). That is something I do not like seeing, just as much as I do not like seeing some artificial means to force overtaking

For me it’s not just DRS that I loathe, I also hate the fact it is relied on way too much. If we’re going to have it, why not limit a driver’s use of it, instead of it being available for the whole of the race? At least then we would see drivers try and use other means and other places to get past, with luck.

Mind you, F1 shouldn’t be all about overtaking. I mean, if it’s the be all and end all, why are dominant drives, like Moss at Monaco 61, Senna at Estoril 85 and Hamilton at Silverstone 08 held in such high regard in the sport, just as much as Villeneuve vs Arnoux at Dijon 79 or Hakkinen on Schumacher at Spa in 2000? And let’s not forget great battles like Villeneuve vs his pursuers at Spain 81 or Senna vs Mansell at Monaco 92 or Schumacher vs Alonso Imola 05, which didn’t feature any overtaking, but was exciting enough due to the ‘will he, won’t he’ that I mentioned above

[Knowlesy]

Defensive driving is as much of an art as passing is.

I think DRS is alright when it isn't too strong. I would prefer we didn't need it, but it is there.

Situations like at Spa are just nuts. You exit Stavelot into a long flat out blast, have two tight corners divided by another little DRS straight and then another massive, flat out blast with a gargantuan DRS area. It is crazy pointless and difficult to defend without being needlessly aggressive.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by wnut

DRS only got introduced as a result of Abu Dahbi 2010 embarrassment where the leaders of the WDC Alonso and Webber got caught behind Petrov's very slow Renault which was running in 6th place, couldn't pass, finished 7th and 8th, and helped Vettel win an unlikely WDC.

Its a shame they couldn't see the wood for the trees and realise that the awful Abu Dhabi track design played a larger role in that situation.