|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
16 Sep 2014, 13:27 (Ref:3453928) | #1 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,986
|
F1 at a crossroads - the future or the past ?
Last weekend provided us with an interesting contrast. The Goodwood Revival afforded us the chance become intoxicated in nostaligia as Lord March completely immersed us in the past. At the same time 5,000 miles away Formula E made it's debut and provided us with a glimpse into what motor racing could be like in the future. Formula One sits, some would say uncomfortably, somewhere between the two encompassing aspects of both but leaning more in the Formula E direction.
Even though Lord March's fare is from before my time [I'm in my 40s], I thoroughly enjoyed the broad variety of F1 machinery and the marked differences in how they behaved on track. It embodied everything about why I became interested in motor racing in the first place and I couldn't get enough of it over the weekend. While I wanted to like Formula E - I see the development of all electric as a more interesting technical challenge than the reverse engineered road stuff F1 is now - I just couldn't get passionate about it. I had to force myself to stick with it to the end. If this is where F1 goes in the future, I'm not sure it'll be able to take me with it. I'd be very interested in how others saw things this past weekend. I'm particularly interested in the views of younger enthusiasts as they're the demographic F1 is completely failing to appeal to... so if you're under 30 when you comment on this and feel OK about letting us know, please do. |
|
|
16 Sep 2014, 14:04 (Ref:3453942) | #2 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,872
|
Quote:
The problem with Formula One, I think, is that the cars just aren't doing anything new. My main passion is endurance racing and so immediately, the 'hybrid' technology doesn't seem new or exciting to me - in fact, quite the opposite. In the WEC, most of the intrigue comes from watching three very different answers to the same question and the different characteristics which come with that. I find it hard to get excited about the differences between three different types of 1.6L V6s, all of which harvest energy in precisely the same manner. So I've not bought into the what the new rules are trying to do from Day One - they just smack of "you WILL be innovative, and here's the strict list of rules to help you with that". When I say the cars aren't doing anything new, I'm talking about a much wider issue. When you watch the Goodwood Revival, it's fantastic watching the variety, despite the fact that the whole weekend covers a period which barely spans across four decades. The pre-War cars look drastically different to the 50s cars, which in turn look drastically different to the rear-engine 60s cars which succeeded them. There is also a spectacular difference in speed from one era to the next, as clear as day to the naked eye. That's because the development of the racing car was rapid - each season, manufacturers and designers brought something new, exciting and unprecedented to the table. That is not to say that the machine was more important than the man - quite the opposite. The machinery the drivers were risking their lives to race were so new and exciting, the drivers appeared to be super-human and became heroes. That is what captured people's imagination. The ICE and the current chassis regulations are right at the end of their development curve now and teams are spending millions on the tiniest of gains. The cars don't look significantly different to the untrained eye from those of the mid-90s (let alone each other), and they're not significantly faster - in fact, they're a fair bit slower than they were a decade ago. For 20 years now, the cars have essentially been the same - no wonder people are losing interest, and that's despite it being arguably the most intriguing WDC in my lifetime. At Goodwood, it would be dangerous to have a race with 40s and 60s F1 cars because of the speed differentials, whereas a well set-up late 90s F1 car wouldn't look out of place in a historic 2010s F1 race. That is why Formula E is exciting. The cars are slow, the technology is basic and grossly underdeveloped, and if the manufacturers show enough interest we'll see the most rapid development of the motor car in top-level motorsport since the arrival of winged F1 cars. I'm loving this season as an enthusiast, but when the championship is fought in cars which look 20 years old to the casual fan, on rubbish tires, in completely proven technology, it is little wonder that the powers that be are starting to get nervous about relevance... |
|||
|
16 Sep 2014, 14:23 (Ref:3453945) | #3 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,986
|
Very good post Ginger !
|
|
|
16 Sep 2014, 14:33 (Ref:3453949) | #4 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,716
|
Quote:
mid 30's and i have a similar hope for Formula E. it might not be the future but it has potential. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
16 Sep 2014, 15:25 (Ref:3453975) | #5 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,650
|
Formula E has a lot of potential. Formula 1 I fear is now going back to please the casual fan by embracing the ways of the old (when it was mainstream) and rejecting the new, as that may reduce competition. An ideal situation would be if Formula 1 could have some regulation space for innovation which has a major impact, so that development can happen quickly, effectively and without as much research/costs, but can still provide the wheel-to-wheel stuff we as fans are currently watching this season.
But that is a huge unlikelihood. |
|
__________________
"Is this stock car racing or is this motorsport?!" - John Cleland |
16 Sep 2014, 15:35 (Ref:3453978) | #6 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 21
|
F1 is at a crossroads, it does need to decide what it is and what it serves. Personally the racing is of far more importance than the technology. In fact I would argue that rather than gizmos such as DRS, strip the cars right back, less aerodynamics, similar power to now, and let the drivers drive.
F1 is a sport, that's its bread and butter, manufacturers will come and go, but the true fans want to see gladiator battles between the drivers. That's not to say its incompatible with new technologies. Formula E provided some cracking racing, and like it or not, whatever the alternative, we aren't going to be watching petrol engined F1 in 30 years time, that really is unsustainable. In terms of innovation though, it has to be controlled. While I was Mansell fan in 1992, the driver with the biggest balls (Patrese's words not mine) won that title, as that car was so advanced it just needed pointing in the right direction had holding on. (I realise I simplify it somewhat). The next steps were ABS and stability control, F1 can never be in that position, it would kill it dead. |
|
|
16 Sep 2014, 15:53 (Ref:3453982) | #7 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,872
|
Quote:
If Formula E does take off, Formula One will find it increasingly difficult to resist the change. And when it does happen, I think it would be a good thing, and I think the whole of motorsport would be better off. Whether we'll be driving electric cars in the future doesn't really matter much - nobody watches F1 because the cars are like what they drive on the road, so this 'road relevance' rhetoric from the rulemakers and stakeholders is a red herring for me. I personally would lament the day the ICE was retired from F1 and the sound of an engine resonates with me deeply - but there's a generation out there who couldn't care less. If - and that's F1 spelled backwards - the sound is really that important to the so-called purists, then if F1 went electric, what's stopping them from going out and discovering the rich tapestry that is the Rest of Motorsport. Touring cars, rallying, sportscars, bikes...these disciplines need to be much more immediately road relevant and the ICE is there to stay for the foreseeable future, because that's what we drive and ride on the road. Another reason why F1 is at such a cross-roads is the predatory attitude CVC and Bernie have taken to coverage of the rest of motorsport, to the extent when F1 itself is called a 'sport'. That makes my blood boil. The Champions League in soccer doesn't get called a 'sport', it's a competition, just like F1 is a series, a championship. If F1 went electric, overnight a lot of people would be repulsed and they would be lost - but equally, a lot of people would switch on and take notice. The entire motorsport community would see a net gain from that, as the so-called purists might turn elsewhere in the sport while the new fans would plug the gap. From there, F1 could build on something new, and it could be the pinnacle of something again. Anyway, that's just some ginger's vision of a motorsport utopia. Ain't ever going to happen like that. |
|||
|
16 Sep 2014, 15:58 (Ref:3453985) | #8 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,169
|
I'm of your era Davyboy, I've also worked (and still do) on a wide range of motoring and motor racing events.
Although not strictly motorsport as it is a run not a race - the veteran car run for pre-1905 cars probably has the greatest example of speed of development and innovation you will see anywhere in one place. This was the real period of pioneering innovation and development, engineers were experimenting with different powertrains and chassis type. In a little over 10 years engineers motoring went from cars that were essentially horseless carriages with an engine fitted (with a paddle tiller to steer) and tricycles - through to examples that you would instantly recognise as a car like the 1904 Mercedes Simplex. And if you factor in that on the run there are petrol ICE cars, steam powered cars and electric cars (YES pre-1905 electric cars) and cars like 1904 Napier Grand Prix Cars and even Land Speed Record cars like the Peerless have taken part. This was the birth of motoring and formed it as we know it today, all other innovations since have come from the ideas of these ealy pioneers. |
|
|
16 Sep 2014, 16:19 (Ref:3453996) | #9 | |
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 435
|
The problem with Formula 1 is that it doesn't know what it wants to be.
CVC/FOMs interest is clearly to generate as much money from F1 as possible. However they are faced with declining interest in the series. Their response has been to try plenty of different approaches to improve the show - which so far has failed to attract new viewers, and increasingly annoys the long-term fans. The manufacturers want to have road-relevant technology in the cars to justify their racing expenses. However, the increasingly strict limitations on technology results in heavily standartised powertrains, which actually have little relevance to the manufacturers' road cars. The teams are quite divided on their goals. The smaller teams want to put more effort into cutting costs (which clashes with the manufacturers' goals), while the larger teams don't want to lose the advantage of the larger budgets. So the question stands: What exactly should F1 be: An entertainment show or a platform for new technology? A spending war or a series were also smaller teams can succeed? The future of motorsport, or a shadow of its past? Formula 1 tries to be everything at once, and doesn't fully succeed anywhere. |
|
|
16 Sep 2014, 16:31 (Ref:3454000) | #10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,716
|
for me it doesnt hold that pursuing technology and maximizing entertainment are mutually exclusive aims.
for some reason though F1 is trying to convince everyone that the two objectives cant be met at the same time...an attitude i dont find surprising given the age of the guy at the top. for example how many people tuned into Apple's latest iphone launch? i have a hard time understanding when people say that new tech takes away from the spectacle. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
16 Sep 2014, 16:42 (Ref:3454004) | #11 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 928
|
I'm in my early 40's and I think Ginger has pretty much nailed my thoughts on the subject. I also watched Goodwood and FE and to be honest was encouraged by both.
I'm one of those that is starting to turn away from F1 after 30 years of avid watching. I'm going more towards endurance racing and back to rallying but I'm intrigued to see how FE develops. Ultimately, if the racing is good people will watch. I'll miss the noise though. One thing is for sure, motor sport and cars as we know them are at the beginning of a massive period of change and it'll be very interesting to see how things develop. F1 is indeed at a major crossroads and I'm afraid with BE in charge I just can't see much changing. |
||
|
16 Sep 2014, 17:43 (Ref:3454014) | #12 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,798
|
I posted in the "radio clampdown" thread a few days back that in addition to not knowing what it wants to be (look forward or backwards), it also doesn't know how to present itself.
In the IT business there is something known as "Conway's Law". It is... "Organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_law My (potentially poor) application of this to F1 is that in addition to a general "sameness" and lack of technology in the racing correlates to things such as how fans experience and view F1. Outside of moving to HD and more pay-per-view, I don't think much has changed other than the increase in both "glitz" and price of admission. In short I would like to see F1 reinvent the viewing experience. Especially for those that can't view in person. If you believe in Conway's Law, then maybe they can't do one without doing the other (the sport and fan experience hand in hand). Richard |
|
|
16 Sep 2014, 18:23 (Ref:3454021) | #13 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
The speeds can't continue to increase, because of safety considerations, but energy limits could allow the innovation to continue while holding speeds down. |
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
16 Sep 2014, 21:33 (Ref:3454081) | #14 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,320
|
Yes, Formula E is electric and silentish. The spin off from that it seems completely sanitised, safe and without risk. I like to stress, it's not, given the crash between Heidfeld and Prost, which was genuinely hazardous but I think an absence of risk is the aesthetic it gives off and I think would leave anyone somewhat dissatisfied irrespective of their age.
In comparison with cars of yore, which snort, make noise, seem insanely overpowered. I think if motorsports was composed almost entirely of variants on Formula E, it would be a far smaller motorsport landscape. The interest wouldn't be there and it would be difficult to generate interest as a spectacle. It might help if electric cars replaced fossil fueled cars as road going cars. In some ways these FE machines seem meeker than the road going cars the average joe drives today. That probably contributes to that vague sense of dissatisfaction. |
||
__________________
If I had asked my customer what they wanted, they would've said a faster horse. -Henry Ford |
17 Sep 2014, 01:28 (Ref:3454148) | #15 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
I have made the point previously that categories and even types of motorsport wax and wane whether it be rallying, sports cars, whatever they all seem to have a natural life cycle and then retreat to a niche within the sport. F1 has largely exceeded its natural life span for a whole lot of reasons but it seems its peak has been seen and it is on the way down. Older contributors might recall the days of Canam, or Rallycross, both hugely popular but either now gone or just a niche. Recall things like the huge crowds that rallying attracted until the demise of Group B and now rallying as a top professional sport is a shadow of its former self.
Another aspect of this demise of categories is caused by age of the fans, as they get older their interests change and the younger ones who should replace them find other interests. There are most probably a thousand reasons for the decline and it would probably make a good thesis for someone! The age of the main stakeholders will also have an impact. Take BE, Charlie Whiting or even the likes of Ron Dennis and Frank Williams. I do not think they have the imagination (and they are not stupid men) to envisage the change necessary to rebirth the business because they have been immersed in a one way trip for so long though I note that FW has made some comments recently that show he at least has some understanding of the problem. The old adage of seeing the wood for the trees is very apt in this situation. If they could as a group agree to what is needed it would mean that CVC would suffer and that will never happen. |
|
|
17 Sep 2014, 06:06 (Ref:3454206) | #16 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,919
|
I am 40, and I think like Gingers that the problem with Formula One, I think, is that the cars just aren't doing anything new. As Gingers my main passion is endurance racing and so immediately, the 'hybrid' technology doesn't seem new or exciting to me - in fact, quite the opposite. In the WEC, most of the intrigue comes from watching three very different answers to the same question and the different characteristics which come with that.
As Pontlieue write the question stands: What exactly should F1 be: An entertainment show or a platform for new technology? I think like Chillibowl that the two objectives may be possible.In my point of view the F1 should have the same engine's rules like LMP1 and more open rules in another areas. My idea of how to have good entertainment despite the technological difference would be: Give the leader of the race lower amount of fuel flow that the rest of the cars then the lider have lower power available. When any car overtake the leader, then the new leader will have lower amount of fuel flow and the old leader will have the same amount of fuel flow like the rest of the cars, and so on every car that is leader will have lower power and the rest of the cars will have all of power. Then as mattthompson79 wants, you can see gladiator battles between the drivers Excuse me for my bad English. |
||
|
17 Sep 2014, 06:27 (Ref:3454211) | #17 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,986
|
The positive thing about Formula E is that for the first time in a very long time we can see a platform where real exploration and innovation could take place. This is because electric vehicles pose some fundamental challenges in terms of energy storage and delivery. You could conceivably start again and offer power train designers a blank canvass with little in the way of restrictions to genuinely innovate. From a technology perspective, this really would be fascinating and have real world applications and benefits. Imagine somebody managed to develop a compact/light energy storage and motor combo that could run a 200 mile race and safely be charged in under a minute, while propelling the car at speeds of up to 200 mph ? Now that would be something to get the world's attention focusing on F1 technology !
This would allow unbridled innovation, but would it be entertaining ? As I said at the beginning... I really struggled to well up an enthusiasm for these things in the same way I was gushing over the stuff at Goodwood. This is probably related to my age so it was interesting to hear the comments from younger contributors. On the subject of age, I think the point about the age of the stakeholders is a very good one and that probably explains why F1 is stuck in a rut, penned in by reams of restrictions and using technology reverse engineered from 5 year old road car R+D in an effort to appear futuristic. |
|
|
17 Sep 2014, 12:06 (Ref:3454295) | #18 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
I think your post bears much merit, however the fact we will driving electric (or hydrogen/ something else), is very relevant and central to where F1 will need to go. F1 cannot bury its head as at some point in the coming years, traditional fuels will become legally and socially unacceptable as a means to power transport. F1 could now direct itself as a leader in the 21st century. It's decision to use the hybrid engines was essential. People have gotten used to the noise (and those screaming V8s were horrible anyway), and it's a technology the common fan can understand. I drive my Prius with a greater knowledge of what the car's doing because I'm an F1 fan. I for one will lament the day I don't see petrol racing cars but I understand it's something I will see. Formula E would have been unthinkable ten years ago, yet it's likely by the turn of the next decade that electric will provide the required speed and range to out perform current F1 cars. Formula E does seem rather sterile store the moment, although the racing was good. Yet, it has embraced exactly what it needs in a way F1 hasn't, social media, fan involvement, approachable drivers and venues that attract full houses (Azerbaijan anybody?). And this is the point, you can have leading technology and regulations that promote racing and harvest competitiveness, the two are not mutually exclusive. F1 will flourish again, I actually think it's in better health than many people speculate. While Bernie was essential for the sport and turned it into the success it is, his time has come. Insiders suggest that many in the sport didn't expect him to survive the court case, it seems preparations for his departure are being made. |
||
|
17 Sep 2014, 14:12 (Ref:3454335) | #19 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,872
|
Quote:
Formula One should be about excess - excessive speed, glamour, technology, money. That is what makes the drivers appear super-human, and what makes the sport other-worldly. Nobody turns up on the spectator bankings to watch reminders of what they drive on the road, or else they'd be at a WTCC or WEC race - like all major world sports, it's about escaping reality and forgetting whatever's been bothering you for the rest of the week or month. Motor racing in many quarters has to be road relevant, but we have rallying, touring cars and sports cars for that. Formula One should be about development for the sake of it - let the rest of motor sport have larger slice of the coverage cake from the media, and let F1 concentrate on being the pinnacle of excess and exclusivity, no matter what the cars are running on. It's not F1's job to fly the flag of alternative fuels as a means of getting from A to B. The cars at Le Mans are called 'prototypes' for a reason... |
|||
|
17 Sep 2014, 14:30 (Ref:3454340) | #20 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but I believe the two can go hand in hand. F1 has pretty much led the way in developing and improving technology for road cars since it's inception. The list is long but, tyres, traction control, engine software, safety advances and ABS (although that never went live in F1, thank God), were all developed by F1 teams or their suppliers. In fact to increase it's relevance, the tyres used on aircraft now were developed from lessons learnt on the race track. I disagree with your thoughts that F1 can just do it's own thing and stick two fingers up to the world around it. F1 can not survive on it's own, the sponsors, the media, the suppliers, the fans all feed that, as soon as it becomes irrelevant to any of those factors, it just becomes a minor series. If manufacturers and sponsors can not get what they want they will go elsewhere. Finally, it is F1's job to fly the flag for alternative fuels. Oil is a finite and increasingly expensive resource, that potentially could be used to hold us to ransom by events in the Middle East. Whether or not F1 wants to run petrol in the future is irrelevant, it won't be able to. Alternative fuels will be the only method to power any vehicles in the future, F1 and all motorsport has to face up to that reality eventually. That's not to say the alternative will be electric, it just seems that is the most likely outcome at the moment. |
||
|
17 Sep 2014, 21:39 (Ref:3454485) | #21 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,320
|
The whole F1 to roadcar schtick is basically to stay topical among sponsors in practical terms.
Sponsors can wed their everyday product to what's on the track in their adverts and promotion, visually and through slogans - even if the actual link is more myth than reality. The sport needs to be perceived to be frontrunner in this respect. Even if it isn't. It can't openly disrespect the prevailing cultural trends. If it does, it needlessly shuts down a spectrum of sponsorship opportunities. It'd be no problem for F1 to engage with alternative fuels. Far less fancied series dabble, F1 can do it to. Why don't they? The fossil fuel cartels are too strong and whilst groups like Shell have hedged their bets to a point, they remain deeply committed to fossil fuels, so whilst it regularly bubbles up, the issue doesn't figure highly on the F1 priority list. |
||
__________________
If I had asked my customer what they wanted, they would've said a faster horse. -Henry Ford |
17 Sep 2014, 23:30 (Ref:3454502) | #22 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
Quote:
I am not interested in watching Toyota Prius at the race track... |
|||
|
18 Sep 2014, 00:04 (Ref:3454506) | #23 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,346
|
Quote:
The cars should be powerful, exciting, difficult, and dangerous to control, but that is only because people want to know that what they are doing is exciting, and the performance is superlative. They are looking for heroes because identifying with a hero makes them feel good, someone they can identify with who makes them feel better about themselves. And a hero is someone who is a real person, not a wind up corporate doll, who can be himself and does a great job. A hero overcomes difficult odds, battles against corporate and political greed and manipulation. He a 'good guy', a human being you can to look up to. That's why despite Hamilton wearing his heart on his sleeve, he has a faithful support base. He's a real person, not a corporate toy. The fans at Monza knew that and responded accordingly. Last edited by Teretonga; 18 Sep 2014 at 00:12. |
||
|
18 Sep 2014, 00:10 (Ref:3454508) | #24 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,320
|
I don't think it's generational thing. Let me ask this question. How would a child react to a racing engine chortling, erupted into life, revved by the driver and screaming down the track. The child would be amazed, astonished, delighted, perhaps even frightened. How would that same child react if an electric car glided past? Perhaps it's not a given that such cars would be quiet and it would be wrong to presume there would be no spectacle if they could turn in a high speed but there's a clear disparity there.
It's possible Formula E will have a long future as a novelty series and the technological possibilities are very compelling. But if motorsport switched to electricity en-mass in a global environment where electric technology was 'normalised' and pedestrian, I think the appeal of motorsport would correspondingly plummet. Frankly, I think F1 would be finished if the world went electric. It's a long way off because I think the world is immersed in the fossils and whilst the rise of green is inevitable and happening, it's still only shuffling slowly forward. |
||
__________________
If I had asked my customer what they wanted, they would've said a faster horse. -Henry Ford |
18 Sep 2014, 00:26 (Ref:3454512) | #25 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,346
|
Quote:
Look at what Red Bull spends its corporate advertising on. Adventure sports. Difficult, dangerous, cutting edge of human endeavour, courage, bravery,even stupidity sometimes. That's what appeals to people and what F1 has to understand is that the chariots are only a backdrop. F1 has lost the ability to attract, as the drivers have become more corporately aligned to sponsors inability to compromise their 'corporate speak-talk. Real heroes are not corporate speak-talk dolls. They are real people we want to identify with or hold up as people to aspire to. How many kids want to identify with and aspire to grow up to be a corporate spokes person who can't think for himself.... Last edited by Teretonga; 18 Sep 2014 at 00:31. |
||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Which team, past or present, has brought the most innovation to F1 | JamesH | Formula One | 37 | 16 Aug 2011 01:27 |
Bravery in F1 (Thing of the past?) | Paddockman | Formula One | 96 | 20 May 2006 09:59 |
What future for F1? | jonboyG | Formula One | 28 | 23 Sep 2004 05:57 |
Would you like to see F1 cars "Moving Around" like in the past? | Sodemo | Formula One | 3 | 27 Jun 2001 23:19 |