F1 at a crossroads - the future or the past ?

[hondafan37]

Watch out F1, the WEC is staking their claim as the top form of motorsport
http://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/w...-of-motorsport

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Absolutely. True.
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.

In the past F1 happened upon a convergence of road relevant 'technological envelope stretching' and the ultimate life/death heart in the mouth excitement. The motor industry were compelled to be involved and the audience found it compelling to watch. The relentless confinement of innovation through technical restrictions have taken it in a direction where it's no longer road relevant [probably a bad thing]... and the relentless drive to improve safety [a good thing] have left it less thrilling to some people.

[Greem]

And this morning, with great fanfare, they announced...

The Official Whisky of F1.

Really.

*shakes head*

It's not so much at a crossroads as being led away down a wooded country path, babbling gently into a device which turns around the words and relays them back to itself.

[mattthompson79]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I don't agree. F1 should be about, noise, smell, speed, excitement, glamour and entertainment, it has nothing to do with mass transit of the masses and never will...



I am not interested in watching Toyota Prius at the race track...

And you can have all of that, F1 just has to decide how it goes about it while accepting that one day there will be no petrol to put in the cars.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

Watch out F1, the WEC is staking their claim as the top form of motorsport
http://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/w...-of-motorsport

I am a fan of both types of racing and I think WEC can make a legitimate argument. Assuming next years WEC and F1 calendar are like this year, I will be traveling to one race at COTA in Texas and it will very likely be the WEC race over the F1 race.

Richard

[Moneyseeker]

Interesting topic - I've worked on new technology' motoring events with the major manufacturers, particularly in relation to demonstrating range and efficiency.

Looking at FE for a moment, aside from initial purchase price, the fundamental barrier consumers have over electric cars is range anxiety, they don't trust the technology, they don't believe in the 'savings', they don't want the inconvenience. Car manufacturers have simply made the cars and expect people to buy the in the same way they have always done. I believe that Vauxhall for example has sold a little over 300 Ampera's in total - and bear in mind that this is a range extender electric car which can do up to 300 miles in range.
In effect electric road cars are trying to run before they can walk as there is relatively no infrastructure to support them in day to day living.

This is where I believe FE has made a fundamental mistake with the format as all it does in re-enforce in the consumers mind that for all the whizz bang that electric cars want to offer them, the fact they can go barely anywhere on a charge is THE negative.

Much better to have had a double header and make electric cars 'sexy', high performance and focus on that aspect.

Regarding F1, I am coming to the conclusion that they should leave fuel efficiency and hybrid technology to WEC cars where it is much more relevant and an achievement to use these systems over 6 hour or 24 hour races, not GP's which are under 200 miles.

The one thing I do not understand is the FIA making virtually nothing of the benefits of new tech in F1. The FIA Foundation has a global campaign called GFEI (Global Fuel Efficiency Initiative) which is all about promoting fuel efficiency in petrol/diesel cars, so you would imagine that running a GP car on 30% less fuel than last year would be a good example of this?!

Whilst I am enjoying the racing in F1, I think that the mixed message of hawking thousands of people and plane loads of equipment around the globe to then make drivers save tyres and fuel in the races is clearly ridiculous and perhaps F1 should just focus on unrestricted racing from unaided drivers.

Even Ron Dennis is having a rethink on what McLaren F1 should actually be by saying that they need to learn to be a racing team again and not an engineering company.

[bella]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I am a fan of both types of racing and I think WEC can make a legitimate argument. Assuming next years WEC and F1 calendar are like this year, I will be traveling to one race at COTA in Texas and it will very likely be the WEC race over the F1 race.

yeah, little old single seater loving me is now a devoted sportscar fan. that's got to be a sign of an impending apocalypse/ageing if ever there was one

i think a good example of where the two cross over a bit is strategy. it suits long, winding races far better than short, sprint ones if you ask me, and as such in f1 it's neither one nor the other. they do a very good job of giving the tv spectator all the possible information they could desire to understand said strategies but there's not really much of a dimension to it.

i mean, take the pretty good 4 hour elms race that happened at paul ricard at the weekend. strategy there was using the quicker drivers who were on limited seat time, double stinting tyres, using different compounds of tyre and fuel strategies too. f1 in comparison has tyre compounds.

i'm not sure what point i'm making, but i feel like f1 has so very few variables. the ones that exist are hyperanalysed and detailed, and thus kind of uninteresting. and the races are too short to introduce greater variables so there's more for teams to tinker with and vary.

[davyboy]

Some really excellent posts here.

@Moneyseeker - I think you're absolutely on the money [see what I did there ] about the fundamental problem with road going electric vehicles and FE's failure to deal with it. I do see that as a fundamental roadblock to FE's future unless/until they open it up and allow manufacturers to develop the energy storage / power train. There's a perfect challenge buried in there - speed, range and replenishment. It's a challenge that nobody's managed to do successfully on any kind of R+D programme for the road - that's where FE could become F1.

@bella and the others. Yes sports car racing is far more interesting to F1 on many levels. There are real technological challenges and genuinely interesting solutions. Races are loaded with strategic conundrums and the multi-driver facet adds to the intrigue. There's only one problem - the races are too long. But even so, sports car racing has already usurped open wheel racing in the US and its growth trajectory has it headed as a direct and real challenger to F1 going forward.

[davyboy]

Autosport's been stealing our ideas for it's covers

[bella]

Originally Posted by davyboy

There's only one problem - the races are too long.

this is why i mentioned elms - at 4 hours it's actually just enough to create intregue (can't spell that) but not long enough for the spectator to wander off bored before it's finished. the 3 hour races in the same series last season were a bit short, and it never really got into a proper flow. personally i find the wec ones at 6 hours a bit too long from the point of view of an ex sprint race fan, but they do have to be that length to make it worthwhile. it also helps that there's an excellent commentary team in radio le mans. they get the balance between making it understandable for the less obsessive of fan, but providing enough stuff for the serious fan to get their teeth into.

imo if "they" could combine the commercial aspects of f1 and the approach to technology and race length of sportscar racing they'd be onto a winner. unfortunately, when you think about it f1 kind of has to be short to retain the passing interest and prime positions on tv schedules. what kind of major tv channel would want to dedicate 4 hours of coverage to an endurance car race?

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by bella

unfortunately, when you think about it f1 kind of has to be short to retain the passing interest and prime positions on tv schedules. what kind of major tv channel would want to dedicate 4 hours of coverage to an endurance car race?

That was my point really.

[bella]

oh sorry, need to be a bit more obvious, i've got manflu and things aren't braining in the right order

in my defence though, there's too long for tv, and too long for fans. sitting in front of the telly for 4 hours on a sunday (plus half an hour each side) could be considered a bit arduous for viewers, let alone a challenge for broadcasters.

on the other hand in person, at the circuit, 4 hours (and even 6 to a point) is a great length as long as you have access to quality scoring and if necessary a bit of commentary too. the epic crowd at the silverstone round showed that people WILL come, even if it was enhanced a bit by the porsche/webber factors. but would they watch on telly? eeehhh. evidence says not so much.

[S griffin]

WEC is definitely on the up. Only fear is if it gets too popular and Bernie kills it like last time

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by S griffin

WEC is definitely on the up. Only fear is if it gets too popular and Bernie kills it like last time

I think it would need another couple of makes to pile in there before Bernie got twitchy.

If we end up with 6 makes, then yes, I think it's further growth would quite probably get purposefully stymied...

Like you say that's essentially what happened in the late 80's/early 90's Group C and not long before that WTCC.

One might also argue WRC was seriously threatening in appeal all round until then regs got messed with a bit too frequently...

The big question is would F1 be immune to threats when BC is finally out of the way? Would other series end up sharing top billing in the world of international motorsport?

[Paradise City]

F1 is institutionalised in the mainstream imagination over a number decades. You'd get confused looks if you mentioned "WEC" to people though. Probably think I'm mispronouncing WC or something.

I prefer WEC too but it's no threat to F1. Won't stop Bernie being paranoid and jealous over F1's rivals of course.

[jmlima]

Originally Posted by mattthompson79

.. Personally the racing is of far more importance than the technology....

Not for the persona leading it, for him money trumps everything else, as can be seen in the move to do away with those annoying back-of-the-grid teams:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...ms-formula-one

The way its heading, in 10 years time you'll have a host of races in lovely places like Dubai and UAE, and a 24 car grid composed solely of Ferrari's, Red Bulls and Mclarens.

How the idea of 'racing' is to remove from the race more teams and increase the existing teams number of cars is beyond me.

[mattthompson79]

Originally Posted by jmlima

Not for the persona leading it, for him money trumps everything else, as can be seen in the move to do away with those annoying back-of-the-grid teams:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...ms-formula-one

The way its heading, in 10 years time you'll have a host of races in lovely places like Dubai and UAE, and a 24 car grid composed solely of Ferrari's, Red Bulls and Mclarens.

How the idea of 'racing' is to remove from the race more teams and increase the existing teams number of cars is beyond me.

That's pretty much how F1 is now!!!! I thought that this was the whole point of this thread, we all know where F1 is heading this is about what we think F1 needs to do to change that trajectory.

Bernie was once the saviour of the sport, now his time has gone and he won't be around for long, certainly not with the power he still holds. For one he's a very old man, and not even he can live for ever. CVC have also made it clear they're looking to cash in, in my mind that leaves it open for the sport to 'buy itself back'.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by davyboy

In the past F1 happened upon a convergence of road relevant 'technological envelope stretching' and the ultimate life/death heart in the mouth excitement. The motor industry were compelled to be involved and the audience found it compelling to watch. The relentless confinement of innovation through technical restrictions have taken it in a direction where it's no longer road relevant [probably a bad thing]... and the relentless drive to improve safety [a good thing] have left it less thrilling to some people.

But people still want a racing driver to be heroic, even if the definition of a hero has morphed or the environment has changed expectations somewhat.
Safety has changed a lot of things but no one ever wanted their hero to die, that would break the mould in someway.
The convergence of technology and the death of the heroic isn't so much about safety but more about the commercialisation and identity of the players. You can still be heroic but not if you're muzzled and all we get is 'parrot chat'.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by mattthompson79

CVC have also made it clear they're looking to cash in, in my mind that leaves it open for the sport to 'buy itself back'.

Therein lies at least one of the keys to this problem. I don't doubt the good that Burnt Ecclescake once did for Formula 1, but that was a long time ago. The teams and the FIA sleepwalked (sleptwalked?) into giving him the ability to extract huge amounts of money purely for his own benefit, and that of his backers. That has been very damaging to the sport.

F1 needs to be run by the governing body (like any other sport) with proper input from all the genuinely interested parties (teams, circuit owners, fans). Then perhaps we could see F1 moving in a sensible direction.

Personally I think the perception of relevance to road cars has mis-directed Formula One for a very long time (even though downforce-aerodynamics is hugely irrelevant, and has been harmful in so many ways). Also so many rules and restrictions seem to be soviet in their pointlessness. What's wrong with a team buying a chassis from someone else? Why shouldn't a team run one, two or three cars, whatever they want? Wouldn't it be fun to completely tear up the rule book, push aside all our pre-conceptions, and devise a new F1 for the 21st century (what remains of it)?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Personally I think the perception of relevance to road cars has mis-directed Formula One for a very long time (even though downforce-aerodynamics is hugely irrelevant, and has been harmful in so many ways). Also so many rules and restrictions seem to be soviet in their pointlessness. What's wrong with a team buying a chassis from someone else? Why shouldn't a team run one, two or three cars, whatever they want? Wouldn't it be fun to completely tear up the rule book, push aside all our pre-conceptions, and devise a new F1 for the 21st century (what remains of it)?

I don't see any conflict between technical innovation and road relevance. I'm big on the road relevance bandwagon, but I think it should happen organically. F1 allowed to do what it does best: everything to excess/extreme. In that process, people come up with new ideas that eventually, on their own time, make it to road cars. The problem is when the rules specify the width of a gear and what it is made out of, and the only way to find an advantage is to work with a supplier on developing some hugely expensive, super-slippery coating that never will make it to road cars because it's just too expensive. Yeah, maybe someday it could possibly find its way into $750,000 Ferraris, but it will never appear in a Hyundai.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I don't see any conflict between technical innovation and road relevance. I'm big on the road relevance bandwagon, but I think it should happen organically. F1 allowed to do what it does best: everything to excess/extreme. In that process, people come up with new ideas that eventually, on their own time, make it to road cars. The problem is when the rules specify the width of a gear and what it is made out of, and the only way to find an advantage is to work with a supplier on developing some hugely expensive, super-slippery coating that never will make it to road cars because it's just too expensive. Yeah, maybe someday it could possibly find its way into $750,000 Ferraris, but it will never appear in a Hyundai.

Before judging whether there is any conflict between technical innovation and road relevance, one should come with the meaning of 'road relevance'. One could explain it as allowing technologies that might transfer to road cars in the (near) future, but also mandating teams to use road car technology in order to refine them. To make it clear, let us take a look at the transmission. On one hand 'road relevance' could be used in favor of completely deregulate the transmissions and hence to allowing automatic gearboxes, but on the other hand it could be used to mandate manual "H-pattern" gearboxes, which are still most common outside Australia and the United States of America.

However, technical restrictions are in some degree necessary for both technical innovations and road relevance. For example, only with downforce being severely limited, the FIA could allow ongoing road relevant powerplant development.

[Paradise City]

Does unique data accrued in F1 ever make the transfer from F1 to the road going car? Does manufacturing processes devised in F1 is ever brought over to roadcar manufacturing?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Before judging whether there is any conflict between technical innovation and road relevance, one should come with the meaning of 'road relevance'. One could explain it as allowing technologies that might transfer to road cars in the (near) future, but also mandating teams to use road car technology in order to refine them. To make it clear, let us take a look at the transmission. On one hand 'road relevance' could be used in favor of completely deregulate the transmissions and hence to allowing automatic gearboxes, but on the other hand it could be used to mandate manual "H-pattern" gearboxes, which are still most common outside Australia and the United States of America.

I would define it as something where F1 can be on the bleeding edge of something that has a reasonable chance of ending up on road cars after the bugs get worked out.

Looking at transmissions, the "flappy paddle" gearboxes which cost Ferrari a few races that first year but now appear (in their proper dry clutch form) in a number of high-end (but well under $750,000) cars would be an example.

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Does unique data accrued in F1 ever make the transfer from F1 to the road going car? Does manufacturing processes devised in F1 is ever brought over to roadcar manufacturing?

We've debated this one around here before, and it's clear there are two separate camps on this subject. I'm in the camp there is a transfer.

Not an F1 specific example, but turbos were used in planes and trucks in the hands of professional drivers, but on cars turbos sucked before the Indy boys got them to where the throttle response was marginally usable and then Porsche/Penske/Donohue in CanAm got it to where they were usable on road courses, which is more like what a real world street car deals with. A few years later, Porsche starting selling 924 turbos that had decent throttle response, and later turbos started appearing in things like Chrysler grocery-getters.

Radials weren't safe for high speed use, and police cars stuck with bias ply long after most cars had gone radial. In the course of trying to create radials for racing, the tire companies were able to start making street radials that were safe for high speed use.

High performance all-season tires benefitted from tread designs developed for racing.

The extremely rapid improvements Audi made in racing diesels showed diesel engines were a relatively immature technology for high performance use. Audi says they have implemented some of their racing innovations on their street cars.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Does unique data accrued in F1 ever make the transfer from F1 to the road going car? Does manufacturing processes devised in F1 is ever brought over to roadcar manufacturing?

Formula One is currently not only relevant to the automotive industry. Boeing is using Formula One's knowledge about aerodynamics, as the open-wheel cars have aerodynamically more in common with airplanes than road cars. Formula One's telemetry and tyre warming technology are currently used in hospitals to monitor a patient and to keep him warm.

According to Mercedes-Benz road cars are already benefitting from Formula One's use of energy recovery systems. One could also think the experience from using so-called driver aids - exempli gratia traction control, anti-lock braking systems and adaptive ride height - as well as interconnected suspensions is very usefull to road cars.

[Greem]

Health care has, surprisingly, learned from F1 too - and not in the way you might think.

Initial article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1014984.stm
Follow up, 6 years later: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527...ders-life.html

There was a very interesting TV programme made as a result of this.

For those of an academic leaning, here's one of the resulting papers from 2007: http://chfg.org/resources/08_qrt02/C...Anestheisa.pdf

Not road relevant exactly, but I bet more than one of you have had surgery using the techniques & protocols for team management learned from F1.