How to fix F1?

[Sodemo]

They have had multiple attempts and "trying to fix F1", why does anyone think this one will be any different? The main thing which is obvious is to reduce the massive aero influence the cars have, but no one seems to want to swallow this bitter pill.

[wnut]

The F1 site itself has posted Lewis' comments.

"Was it encouraging? It was encouraging that they allowed us to be there and they were really, really welcoming, which was great, and I’m hoping that they will continue to have us there, some of us drivers or a couple of us drivers each time. They’ve extended the decision of making the rules. I think they need to because they’re nowhere near where it should be in my opinion and they’ve got to make some serious changes to the decisions that they’ve already made of how 2021 should be." Lewis Hamilton

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...0SOmh2oPK.html

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I'm not a fan of getting the drivers involved, just to make a point that coming up with rules is hard. "If you think you can do better, then you do it" is not a valid response in 99% of situations.

If a chef makes a bad meal, the solution isn't to go to the kitchen and cook my own. If a doctor makes a mess of an operation, you shouldn't just nip in and try it yourself. And if Ross Brawn makes a complete mess of the F1 regulations, then someone who points that out doesn't suddenly become responsible for fixing it.

I'm sure it is hard. But you know that, and the people who hired you know that, and presumably you're getting paid good money to sort it. So sort it.

Whilst not agreeing with the driver bit, I really like the rest of your post Akroprovic.
The whole world seems to be increasingly moving away from any form of responsibility for anything, "nobody could have predicted that outcome", many of these experts merely engage in satisficing behavior and employ endless consultants without delivering any results. They need to be held accountable and got rid of when they don't produce the results they are meant to.

If Mr Brawn's rules don't deliver closer racing and improved costs, i.e. the dinner sucks, bye bye

[S griffin]

I like the fact drivers are willing to get involved. They are showing they care about the sport and want to make it more enjoyable for them and the fans too

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The team that seem to be doing this better than anyone else at the moment is the package behind Lewis Hamilton's car. I feel we should look at what they are getting right, and look at how that can be transferred to the rest of the grid, rather than trying to undo what they are doing.

First, I appreciate that thoughtful post. Cheers!

So the question is... What is Mercedes doing right and how can that be transferred to the rest of the grid. While success involves many many factors. I think it can be boiled down to one thing... Funding.

This begs the question of why Ferrari (lets assume they are equally funded) are not currently successful, or someone like Toyota in the past not successful. Money does not give immunity from things like internal politics, spending in the wrong areas, etc. But it does allow you to assemble the best. Mercedes money has allowed them to execute to the level we see today. Without that money, they would look different.

Back to your question. You can't mandate excellence or competence. What can be done is to put limits the driving factor which is money. If everyone has roughly the same money, they are able to staff and resource equally. Teams should be able to more easily steal resources from each other.

Requoting that last bit...

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

how that can be transferred to the rest of the grid, rather than trying to undo what they are doing.

If funding is the differentiator, and I think it is the important one... You either bring everyone up to Mercedes level (not realistic) or you bring Mercedes down to some lower median level. So... In short, I don't think we can move forward without "undoing" something at Mercedes (and Ferrari, etc.)

The next question would be... if someone like Mercedes is spending less money. Will F1 be less than it is today? Will it still be the pinnacle? The sport is dynamic. It can both be lesser than today in some ways and still be the pinnacle. The cars can be made to be faster than anything else using less money. Speed of the cars is more a factor of the technical regulations. What we complain about is the larger question of competitiveness of the entire field which is unrelated to things like speed of the cars (as a whole).

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

What we have today is the best that the engineers, designers, drivers, nutritionists, psychologists, suppliers et al can deliver.

The sentence above is missing one qualifier... They are doing the best they can given their respective funding. If all teams were given more money they would all generally do better. Increase Mercedes budget and I am sure they could find ways to improve the car. The level of funding is pretty artificial today. It's governed by factors outside of the sport such as world economics and a slew of other factors. So putting in a cap is no more artificial than it already is.

With a cap... crmalcom's comment would still stand.

Richard

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

So the question is... What is Mercedes doing right and how can that be transferred to the rest of the grid.

Money isn't the whole story. Continuity has a lot to do with it, IMO.

When Brawn took over the old Honda team, he kept a lot of the people who fitted with his management style or could adapt well to it, and many of them stayed when Mercedes arrived with their bank account bulging with Euros to spend on F1.

Brawn left, Wolff/Lauda and co arrived, and they did the right thing and kept on a lot of the staff too. Sure, there's been movement, people have left, people have arrived, but they're not playing the "this is wrong therefore you must go" game that some teams seem to play a lot of.

With that level of trust and continuity comes a two-way feeling of loyalty; those who have been there a long time are trusted, and that allows people in relatively 'junior' positions to have their say. Ideas are propagated, many are binned but some bubble up to the top and become parts, custom & practice, or common knowledge.

Right now Mercedes F1 as an organisation are about as close to perfect as they can be in terms of achieving their annual goals. Their car is almost completely reliable, their drivers are at their absolute best (but counterintuitively keep getting better!), their people believe that they can win, so win they do. Not without their own issues, sure, but they keep on outsmarting the competition day after day after day.

Universities will be teaching the Mercedes F1 "way" to students of management in years to come.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

They have had multiple attempts and "trying to fix F1", why does anyone think this one will be any different? The main thing which is obvious is to reduce the massive aero influence the cars have, but no one seems to want to swallow this bitter pill.

I mentioned earlier that we should be prepared to be let down. It's all just speculation at this moment and its just as likely they screw things up as get it right given the history of all prior attempts.

Originally Posted by wnut

The F1 site itself has posted Lewis' comments.

"Was it encouraging? It was encouraging that they allowed us to be there and they were really, really welcoming, which was great, and I’m hoping that they will continue to have us there, some of us drivers or a couple of us drivers each time. They’ve extended the decision of making the rules. I think they need to because they’re nowhere near where it should be in my opinion and they’ve got to make some serious changes to the decisions that they’ve already made of how 2021 should be." Lewis Hamilton

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...0SOmh2oPK.html

My complaint is we have no idea what Lewis thinks is right or wrong. I suspect part of his admittance to the meeting was to not provide details to the press. So he is being vague, but it's really pointless. I am not even sure who the audience is for his message. Fans? To what purpose? To those in the meetings? Maybe. No clue what his agenda is other than "to make things better" (which is vague to the point of being meaningless). That's not a dig at Lewis as my opinion is that most talk (regardless of who) you see about this topic is vague as to specific solutions.

Originally Posted by wnut

If Mr Brawn's rules don't deliver closer racing and improved costs, i.e. the dinner sucks, bye bye

It's unfortunate, but at this moment in time (I reserve the right to change my mind!) I feel the same way. I am more and more on the fence about caring about F1. Given the duration of new rules, right or wrong we are likely stuck with whatever they come up with for probably a decade. Given the fast pace of change, I can see this making or breaking F1. If it lands like a lead balloon, I can see a good subset of fans just drifting away from the sport.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Greem

Universities will be teaching the Mercedes F1 "way" to students of management in years to come.

you are right there and what they are doing on an organizational level is massively impressive but that is, imo, in and of itself a big part of the problem.

for sure being good at business is an integral requirement for a modern day sports club but for me there is a problem when 'business' starts becoming the the best thing they are good at.

im not saying Merc are there yet but certainly that seems to be the direction they are heading in. a team securing 500mil a year to operate with and managing 1000+ employees is not the show i want to watch.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Greem

Money isn't the whole story. Continuity has a lot to do with it, IMO.

When Brawn took over the old Honda team, he kept a lot of the people who fitted with his management style or could adapt well to it, and many of them stayed when Mercedes arrived with their bank account bulging with Euros to spend on F1.

Brawn left, Wolff/Lauda and co arrived, and they did the right thing and kept on a lot of the staff too. Sure, there's been movement, people have left, people have arrived, but they're not playing the "this is wrong therefore you must go" game that some teams seem to play a lot of.

With that level of trust and continuity comes a two-way feeling of loyalty; those who have been there a long time are trusted, and that allows people in relatively 'junior' positions to have their say. Ideas are propagated, many are binned but some bubble up to the top and become parts, custom & practice, or common knowledge.

Right now Mercedes F1 as an organisation are about as close to perfect as they can be in terms of achieving their annual goals. Their car is almost completely reliable, their drivers are at their absolute best (but counterintuitively keep getting better!), their people believe that they can win, so win they do. Not without their own issues, sure, but they keep on outsmarting the competition day after day after day.

Universities will be teaching the Mercedes F1 "way" to students of management in years to come.

Broadly agree. I was trying to boil it down it's bare and picked funding. I would actually say... funding and time. I think continuity is part of the time factor. And starting from a decent foundation cuts down the time requirement. If someone with a fat budget showed up today, it would take years (or longer) to claw their way to the top if they tried to build a team from scratch.

And as much as I say funding is key... I don't want to downplay what is going on at Mercedes from a management perspective. I think they have really figured it out. Like I said earlier, you can have money and spend it badly. I think Mercedes is just doing it all right.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

So in summary, a few seem to want cars that are less complicated, but also unreliable. With less development, less testing, less simulator work, outdated technology and obsolescence built into their design.

And yet:



What we have today is the best that the engineers, designers, drivers, nutritionists, psychologists, suppliers et al can deliver.

To be fair, apart from the reliability, I don't feel this is as contradictory as it seems. The cars as we have it today are absolutely not the best that the engineers and designers can deliver. They are the best that they can deliver within the current rules. They are the pinnacle...within the ruleset. By dialing back the rules, you don't change that - it's still going to be the best within the ruleset.

There are many innovations which aren't F1, and the cars would do a lot more if they were allowed. It isn't the best at everything. It's the best within a defined scope.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

you are right there and what they are doing on an organizational level is massively impressive but that is, imo, in and of itself a big part of the problem.

for sure being good at business is an integral requirement for a modern day sports club but for me there is a problem when 'business' starts becoming the the best thing they are good at.

This makes me wonder - would F1 be 'better' if all the teams were bad at business? In that situation, I think the results would come down to who got their heads around the business needs best, which would ultimately lead back to what we have now.

Which takes me back to my previous post - how can we spread what Mercedes do so well to others. I think the best way to do this is transparency. Rather than trying to hide things from other teams, which would be the situation if budget caps were in place, or as happens now with development being continually controlled and teams trying to gain that upper hand.

In military circles, potential adversaries are sometimes signed up to treaties where they can view each other's capabilities. Would something similar work in F1 I wonder.
If all teams had to have open access to their facilities and engineering records, then others could learn what Mercedes are doing so well - and each team would work towards 'best practice'.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My complaint is we have no idea what Lewis thinks is right or wrong. I suspect part of his admittance to the meeting was to not provide details to the press. So he is being vague, but it's really pointless. I am not even sure who the audience is for his message. Fans? To what purpose? To those in the meetings? Maybe. No clue what his agenda is other than "to make things better" (which is vague to the point of being meaningless). That's not a dig at Lewis as my opinion is that most talk (regardless of who) you see about this topic is vague as to specific solutions.
Richard

I am prepared to take Lewis at his word, that he has nothing to gain from being inolved in the rule making process, Mercedes will look after his interests.
“I was in that meeting, watching all the bosses of F1. I think there was the FIA and all the Formula One teams, and trying to get involved in… I have nothing to gain by it by being there but if there’s anything I can help… they’ve been making all these decisions and never once had a driver’s input in that room, so if that can be the decisive point that helps shift it and the fans can get better racing, I will be proud to be a part of that.”

Lewis is currently the top driver in F1 with the top team, and any changes can only be to his detriment, yet he has consistently espoused changes that may well affect his dominance.
He has frequently criticised:
1)The tyres
2)The aero and wake turbulence that starts affecting the trailing car when it is 5 seconds behind the leader.
3)The cars getting heavier. To wit from the above press conference:
“One of the issues that we have is that our cars are too heavy and so the brakes are beyond the limit, they’re always overheating and they’re talking about going heavier in 2021 which is the wrong… I promise you is the wrong direction.”
4)Lewis has criticised the necessity to conserve fuel and tyres and the inability to push during the races which again prevents the cars racing one another.

I think that Lewis really enjoys racing, and would value the opportunity to show just how good he is in a driver orientated series. He points out in the interview:

“we [The current drivers] all sit together in a room, particularly after the drivers briefing, and we talk about the issues. Then they bring up the rule sheet and what the things… and we are basically trying to get in the door and trying to be a part of it, and for many, many years they have not wanted us in that room, which I guess is why it’s never happened, because they’re engineers and they’re the guys that make the decisions and we’re just drivers. But the fact is we know how the car feels and so we have good positive criticism and negative criticism that can only help influence a decision. You can’t make a rule change about something without having all the facts behind it and what effect it will have and so… Anyway, so we just go in there to try and be a guide and if we can be a part of the rudder when they come up with an idea we can say actually that would feel terrible in the car and they would be like ‘oh really.’ “


I am prepared to accept that Lewis attended the meeting with no agenda to serve other than improving the racing that F1 delivers. I think his message here is to try and block the FIA and Ross into making substantial changes that improve the F1 product. Whether this works or not remains to be seen.

The manufacturers’ fear that any rule changes that put the drivers at the centre of the performance equation will result in F1 drivers commanding vast salaries as performance differentiators sits more than comfortably with me, that is how it should be.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

I am prepared red to accept that Lewis attended the meeting with no agenda to serve other than improving the racing that F1 delivers. I think his message here is to try and block the FIA and Ross into making substantial changes that improve the F1 product.

Just to be clear... Me saying we don't know what Lewis's agenda is, doesn't imply his agenda is nefarious. I am just saying we don't know what he rates as good or bad about it. We may, or may not agree with his assessment.

Richard

[Sodemo]

To me, the cars need to be;

- Overall shorter length
- Have a shorter wheelbase
- Lighter
- 80% reduction in upper surface aero (with tiny front and rear wings)

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Just to be clear... Me saying we don't know what Lewis's agenda is, doesn't imply his agenda is nefarious. I am just saying we don't know what he rates as good or bad about it. We may, or may not agree with his assessment.

Richard

I did not think you were implying Lewis' agenda was nefarious.

I was trying to infer from his remarks that his agenda is to promote racing and cars that enhance the sport. His remarks seem to support the changes that should be made to make better racing cars than we have at present.
Heavier cars are a disaster and a step in the wrong direction, Lewis is right on the money.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

I did not think you were implying Lewis' agenda was nefarious.

I was trying to infer from his remarks that his agenda is to promote racing and cars that enhance the sport. His remarks seem to support the changes that should be made to make better racing cars than we have at present.
Heavier cars are a disaster and a step in the wrong direction, Lewis is right on the money.

So I am beating a dead horse on this, but I would say that much of what you are attributing to Lewis is just broad goals which don't provide much value. Even the specifics such as tires, car weight, wake turbulence are problem areas and not solutions.

And the closest to a "solution" is the car weight one (i.e. reduce weight). But even that one, I would say that the impact to the larger question of improving racing or fan experience... Frankly it doesn't even make "my" top 10 or 20 list of issues. I have no doubt that from a drivers perspective a lighter car is better (all other things being equal).

Lastly... I don't want to appear to be negative toward Lewis or his feedback. My comments about him focusing on goals and problems and not solutions is the #1 problem I think when it comes to ANYONE who is talking about how to fix F1.

Richard

[hondafan37]

What do you think of Bernie Ecclestone's ideas?

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/n...-how-id-fix-f1

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

What do you think of Bernie Ecclestone's ideas?

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/n...-how-id-fix-f1

Too many pearamiters e.g. "If you want to, you can refuel. You have just one set of tyres but, if you want to stop and refuel, you can also change tyres. Then maybe we'd have to change the weight of the car." Keep it simple. One of F1's problems is over complicating things.

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Too many pearamiters e.g. "If you want to, you can refuel. You have just one set of tyres but, if you want to stop and refuel, you can also change tyres. Then maybe we'd have to change the weight of the car." Keep it simple. One of F1's problems is over complicating things.

It's true, it's quite ambiguous, but also, there is something of his ideas that is not clear to me. Is it going to be a Spec car or is it going to allow some development with those 30 M. to the teams?

[Richard C]

I read it as multiclass F1 (similar to bespoke LMP1 and spec chassis LMP2) with a base of 30 million to ensure a full field. I think it might work about as well as current prototype racing. Two classes have their own races and manufacturers drop out of their class as they don't have enough competition and participation is expensive. It really only ensures a full field. That full field might as well be Indycar.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I read it as multiclass F1 (similar to bespoke LMP1 and spec chassis LMP2) with a base of 30 million to ensure a full field. I think it might work about as well as current prototype racing. Two classes have their own races and manufacturers drop out as their class is they don't have enough competition. It really only ensures a full field. That full field might as well be Indycar.

Richard

But full the field wouldn't be like IndyCar, it would be a multiclass, as you initially said. In that article Bernie says, manufacturers like Ferrari, Mercedes etc., "would race the way they want." and those racing in the team's championship would use a spec car.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

But full the field wouldn't be like IndyCar, it would be a multiclass, as you initially said. In that article Bernie says, manufacturers like Ferrari, Mercedes etc., "would race the way they want." and those racing in the team's championship would use a spec car.

Sorry, I typed my response quickly and poorly. The spec class looks to be pretty similar to IndyCar. Spec chassis, multi engine suppliers and (most likely) something with the car teams can spend money on to improve performance (not defined, but implied in his proposal). Top teir would be current F1 with maybe two teams (Mercedes and Ferrari).

So... multi class racing. Something like IndyCar making up the bulk of the field plus a few F1 cars. Hence my comparison to recent WEC prototype racing (which is failing at this same model due to lack of interest in an expensive top class with few competitors). Single class racing in F1 today gives the illusion of competition. Mercedes today beats a multitude of teams each race. Gives them something to crow about. It's why they remain in the sport.

But we know they really just compete against Ferrari and on good days... Red Bull. So the current multi class racing is buried in the illusion that everyone in F1 can win. I mean, sure if the leaders crash out, etc. Someone else will win, but it would be a 100% fluke.

Richard

[Armco Bender]

Isle of Man GP.....that would get people interested again.

[chunterer]

It's funny, I watched the '79 British GP recently and I'm not sure i've seen a performance that dominant by a team. '92 Mansell/Fw14b would be the only other one.

The racing behind was furious though and up until Silverstone there had been multiple winners. The cars could follow each other in corners much easier than today though which is what we need.
On the other hand reliability was poor compared to now.

Others have said it many a time but rose tintedness always creeps into these discussions when we say it was much better in the old days.

What is clear from the previous eras is there will always be technical ingenuity, but aero performance is the main area needing addressing.

[S griffin]

It's true cars could follow closer, that was helped by the ground effect at the time, even if it did get a bit dangerous in the end. And as for the unreliability at the time, that helped make things less predictable. Prost once said you had to expect at least a couple of DNFs a season. Now look at Hamilton, only had one retirement in the last two seasons.