How to fix F1?

[Purist]

Not sure what exactly "no longer interesting" or "isn't relatively interesting" is supposed to mean.

The TGV shows that we've known how to make 400-km/h trains for a while. And actually, the aerodynamics of an F1 car, or LMP1, a probably a lot more complicated. For those vortex-producing bits, among other things, yeah, it probably does help to have the best people in the field on that.

The manufacturers are there to win, not see how even things can be, so it doesn't really matter to them if their own technology doesn't expressly improve the racing; that's not their job in the first place.

Yes, I'm aware of where regular transportation is headed, at least in other parts of the world, and in the very largest cities in the US. That doesn't really have anything to do with F1 though, or motor racing in general. And in my neck of the woods, you'd have to shoot some people, because they're not going to give up their big pick-em-up trucks so long as they're alive, no matter what anybody says.

[chillibowl]

to each their own of course but i guess the technologies associated with F1 that used to interest me i find are more interestingly pursued by other industries.

as for the manus i imagine their desire is to pursue technologies they can monetize in their road cars (electric self driving cars) isnt a particularly relevant for a racing series. too quiet and i need drivers to matter more not less.

and to compound matters they spend way too much money while doing it that its come across more as wasteful then valuable.

hence im more inclined to look for other solutions that de-emphasis spending and technology with the hope that leads to a more competitive series.

[wnut]

As predicted deadline for 2021 rules extended. June 2019 now pushed out to the end of October 2019.

"…. it has been unanimously agreed to defer the final presentation of the Technical, Sporting and Financial regulations for the FIA Formula 1 World Championship for 2021 and beyond until the end of October 2019,” it said in a statement.
“While the FIA Formula 1 World Championship’s key stakeholders feel the core objectives outlined for the future set of regulations of the championship have been defined, in the interests of the sport it was agreed that the best outcome will be achieved by using the extra time for further refinement and additional consultation.”"

Wonder what the next deadline will be ….?

Why doesn't the FIA simply publish the set of rules they want, which I understand they are entitled to do when there is no agreement, and make the teams change the rules they don't like with unanimity and the Ferrari veto in place?

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/n...ials-are-split

[alan1302]

Originally Posted by wnut

Yhy doesn't the FIA simply publish the set of rules they want, [/url]

They want to reach a happy compromise and have happy teams - if they just enforced everything they would have a lot more to sort out...a few months delay should be a good thing for everyone concerned.

[S griffin]

They just need to make it so the cars are able to run closer together and make cars more challenging. That’s the least they can do

[ScotsBrutesFan]

I was chatting with a friend about setting F1 to rights and sorting out some of the simpler frustrations that could easily be resolved.... yes there was alcohol involved.

One he picked up on was at the end of the safety car period, the faffing around with lapped cars being released to overtake under yellow and pass the safety car.

He came up with a very simple solution that I thought was worthy of further consideration.

Approaching the point where the track is clear and lapped cars be allowed to pass, the safety car leads all but the lapped cars through the pitlane. The lapped cars are allowed to stay on track and accelerate past the pits. On leaving the pits the safety car continues to lead the pack at SC speeds, allowing those lapped the chance to "get away" but not necessarily catch the back of the pack.
The safety car completes its final lap in the fashion it does now, by turning lights off and sprinting away.

To me this does 3 things:
It removes the rather awkward looking slow speed passing under yellow and passing the safety car on track.
It adds to a definitive procedure for the end of any SC period, the fact that they are being lead through the pits is a clear "green next time around". (Obviously if there is no lapped cars then this is not required).
It would hopefully reduce the number of laps of safety car as we have sometimes seen lapped cars being released at the start of a lap, with the SC going another 2 or more laps (seems to be race directors discretion) before going green.

It may not be the biggest issue facing F1 but small steps.

[Paradise City]

I'm just a big fan of leaving lapped cars the way they are.

[Casper]

On reflection I think the single most important thing that might get cohesion and good management back into the sport is removing the teams from the decision making process. If the teams were not involved the whole 2021 menu of changes would now be set in stone. It is only the teams trying to protect their own self interest at the cost of the sport that is delaying things. I despair at the motor sport media's lack of criticism in this matter, am I the only one? They should be getting stuck into the teams for their delaying tactics and not just reporting it verbatim from press releases. Even the independent reporters who criticise those who don't attend events have obviously not got the back bone to report it like it should be reported.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

I'm just a big fan of leaving lapped cars the way they are.

I agree, it's hardly skill that a driver can be handed a lap back on a plate like that.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Casper

On reflection I think the single most important thing that might get cohesion and good management back into the sport is removing the teams from the decision making process. If the teams were not involved the whole 2021 menu of changes would now be set in stone. It is only the teams trying to protect their own self interest at the cost of the sport that is delaying things. I despair at the motor sport media's lack of criticism in this matter, am I the only one? They should be getting stuck into the teams for their delaying tactics and not just reporting it verbatim from press releases. Even the independent reporters who criticise those who don't attend events have obviously not got the back bone to report it like it should be reported.

I was not aware of LH's comments when I wrote the above but he thinks the same way...https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ge-formula-one

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Casper

I despair at the motor sport media's lack of criticism in this matter, am I the only one? They should be getting stuck into the teams for their delaying tactics and not just reporting it verbatim from press releases. Even the independent reporters who criticise those who don't attend events have obviously not got the back bone to report it like it should be reported.

this is a great point. it is really quite surprising that the sport doesnt get called out for this more.

whether its in the sports pages or in a business section, collusion is a headline type story and one that consumers want to know about.

whether you like him or not or think him self serving or not, LH's social media savvy means he is typically on point when it comes to what the fans are saying/thinking and responds by echoing those thoughts back at us.

that the media is also unwilling to pick up on a major theme in social media seems contrary to how they produce the news these days...so yeah its very odd indeed.

but a reporter starts talking this side of the story up and i suspect they will lose their credentials or find themselves being refused interview requests.

more telling might be LH's inference that the philosophy of F1's governance has not changed much since the days of BE.

[loon]

Since both of this seasons championships are already over why not cancel the rest of the season giving all the teams a massive budget saving and a really long holiday for the poor overworked staff.

[Adam43]

I thought the media do point out F1 failings. Thing is they also manage to write about other stuff too, it’s not a forum so they try to talk about different things in each article.

[Purist]

It doesn't necessarily work too well to have all one or the other.

That is, for instance, the Indy Car teams felt that USAC wasn't adequately capable of taking things in a direction such that the series could be commercially viable, and so they eventually took matters into their own hands.

But then again, once an overall management structure is in place, it's clearly problematic to be too beholden to the teams, or at least, to just a few of them.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

I was not aware of LH's comments when I wrote the above but he thinks the same way...https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ge-formula-one

First, I find this response hilarious...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/b...rules/4481770/

True or not, it comes across to me as Ross saying... "Oh, you think this is easy? Welcome aboard my friend. Here is a list of upcoming meetings."

Lewis has attended one meeting and is now armchair quarterbacking? He did have some positive things to saw about the direction, so it wasn't all negative criticism. As to what he thinks the solution is... He talked more about goals (cars should be faster) vs specifics ( how is that achieved?) Its always harder converting goals into specifics such as technical regulations.

I absolutely think they should involve the drivers, but their input should just be one voice among many. Drivers are not immune to generating well meaning, but dumb or half baked ideas (i.e. Stefan Johansson and some of his recent articles which IMHO are not rooted in reality)

Back to Lewis...I would agree on the criticism regarding delays to this process. I have no doubt that many of us (myself included) have built up these 2021 changes so high with respect to our expectations, that reality is going to fall short. I hope I am wrong, but be prepared to be disappointed.

Richard

[Johno.UK]

Interesting article in Autosport today about how the Honda jet engine division has helped the F1 engine division. This is my worry about costs caps etc. How do they police something like that? A company with it's fingers in many (internal) pies is going to have many cost advantages.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Johno.UK

Interesting article in Autosport today about how the Honda jet engine division has helped the F1 engine division. This is my worry about costs caps etc. How do they police something like that? A company with it's fingers in many (internal) pies is going to have many cost advantages.

If I remember correctly, and I may be wrong...proposals say engine development costs will not be capped? I need to dig up what the older articles said on this topic.

Richard

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Johno.UK

Interesting article in Autosport today about how the Honda jet engine division has helped the F1 engine division. This is my worry about costs caps etc. How do they police something like that? A company with it's fingers in many (internal) pies is going to have many cost advantages.

Crikey, well done for coming across an interesting article published by that mag nowadays.

If manufacturers subcontract stuff to other divisions, there will be some paper/number trail somewhere.

Back to basic a minute, as I have said countless times, it is the basic regs that need to be re-written to cut down on all the OTT aero stuff that stops cars racing and all the bits and bobs that cost zillions just to gain a 10th here and there. That would automatically reduce costs and improve on track action!

Lewis Hamilton says all the right things, after all I still see him as an out and out racer. But why are the drivers only being invited now?!

I just don't understand why the FIA/Liberty are so set on keeping unattractive regs that keep Merc and to a lesser extent Ferrari and Renault happy at the expense of attracting new manufacturers and more independent entries?

I think it's disgraceful.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

First, I find this response hilarious...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/b...rules/4481770/

True or not, it comes across to me as Ross saying... "Oh, you think this is easy? Welcome aboard my friend. Here is a list of upcoming meetings."

Lewis has attended one meeting and is now armchair quarterbacking? He did have some positive things to saw about the direction, so it wasn't all negative criticism. As to what he thinks the solution is... He talked more about goals (cars should be faster) vs specifics ( how is that achieved?) Its always harder converting goals into specifics such as technical regulations.

I absolutely think they should involve the drivers, but their input should just be one voice among many. Drivers are not immune to generating well meaning, but dumb or half baked ideas (i.e. Stefan Johansson and some of his recent articles which IMHO are not rooted in reality)

Back to Lewis...I would agree on the criticism regarding delays to this process. I have no doubt that many of us (myself included) have built up these 2021 changes so high with respect to our expectations, that reality is going to fall short. I hope I am wrong, but be prepared to be disappointed.

Richard

I am seldom black or white on these matters but absolutely not and get rid of the teams input at the same time. There are already too many cooks trying to bake the cake and less are needed to stop the camel from having four humps. 2021 because it has been delayed, watered down and generally stuffed up will change very little IMHO due to the top teams fighting tooth and nail to protect their advantage. Add drivers to that and the situation will become even worse. BE created this mess for all sorts of reasons including trying to prevent a breakaway series but it does need a very limited number of people to regulate the sport/business and tell the teams to get on with it if they want to continue to play in the sand pit.

[Johno.UK]

Originally Posted by chunterer

If manufacturers subcontract stuff to other divisions, there will be some paper/number trail somewhere.

Not necessarily. I'm not talking about subcontracting stuff to other divisions. I'm talking about one division starting on a project that another division has already done a lot of work which was nothing to do with F1. They would be in a position to tell those engineers which blind alleys to avoid etc.

Subcontracting would definitely be covered in a cost cap but this is different.

[S griffin]

Now it appears the FIA are looking into changing the rejoin rules for 2020. Let's hope it has it's desired effect without letting drivers getting away with too much...

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Casper

I am seldom black or white on these matters but absolutely not and get rid of the teams input at the same time. There are already too many cooks trying to bake the cake and less are needed to stop the camel from having four humps. 2021 because it has been delayed, watered down and generally stuffed up will change very little IMHO due to the top teams fighting tooth and nail to protect their advantage. Add drivers to that and the situation will become even worse. BE created this mess for all sorts of reasons including trying to prevent a breakaway series but it does need a very limited number of people to regulate the sport/business and tell the teams to get on with it if they want to continue to play in the sand pit.

Don't confuse getting input from multiple sources with surrendering control. I am a fan of taking power away from the teams and centralizing it somewhere else. That how it's done today is wrong.

But... you can listen to what everyone has to say. Fans, Teams, Sponsors, Drivers, Event Promoters, etc. You then can also apply weights to what everyone says. Everyone does not have an equal voice. That is why I also said to beware of what the drivers say. Nobody should be trusted absolutely.

Richard

[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.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Johno.UK

I'm talking about one division starting on a project that another division has already done a lot of work which was nothing to do with F1. They would be in a position to tell those engineers which blind alleys to avoid etc.

Side band discussions on technical knowledge could and will happen and would be hard to catch via forensic accounting. Depending upon the size and extent of it happening... it can be a small or large circumvention of the rules.

You talk to a friend in a pub and he tells you why something doesn't work. Info was passed. Someone should be compensated. However this is a minor offense.

Large manufacture creates an internal shadow organization to do research that will help the F1 team. Then moves technical information for free (or at a significant cost reduction that is below "fair value") into the team. That is blatant cheating.

Both can happen. The first is not what anyone really cares about. The second (depending upon the scale) may be difficult to keep secret. My current line of thinking is that those who have the budget to try to seriously circumvent the budget rules may not have the appetite to get involved in that level of nefarious activities due to the risk of exposure. This is the equivalent of hiding extra fuel tanks in your car, etc. Stuff that could happen today, but teams may not do given how blatant it is (if discovered)

There is likely to be some level of stuff that goes on between the two extremes I mention above. Time will tell how prevalent this is.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

This quote in the thread about favourite F1 seasons got me thinking:

None of this politically correct group hug stuff, just get in drive the car like you stole it.

The discussion in this thread (and I am probably also guilty of it) at times seems to want the impression of one thing, but the reality of another.

Is it right that a driver should be able to 'just get in and drive', or do we only seem to want that impression. Being able to just get in and driver would suggest that the cars are relatively easy to drive.

make cars more challenging. That’s the least they can do

One issue with cars that are difficult to drive is summarised:

The intent might be "make them difficult to drive", but the designers and race engineers jobs (of which they are quite good) will be to tame the beasts and they will. Just like they have in F1 today.
We keep taking away "drivers aids" (traction control, real active aero, active suspension, launch control, etc.) and yet they seem to get easier and easier to drive.

Which goes back to my point - the cars may seem easier to driver, but are they really so?

As another poster mentioned, forcing a reduction in development in certain areas to make the cars more difficult will mean the improvements will be made elsewhere:

If cars are more difficult to corner because of the reduction of downforce that will open the door to great technical advancement in roadholding through suspension and other technical development.

The only reason the aero-problem is so significant is because other doors of advancement were closed but downforce was allowed to run in a particular direction without the curbs placed on other elements of car design and regulation.

If all development was stopped, or seriously curtailed, then drivers would look to compensate in other areas, and mean a lot of testing (or time in a sim) is required to get the best results.

I have sat beside a lower formula single seat driver in a simulator and to watch him drive and make decisions makes me look on in awe at what F1 drivers do every lap.

And this is possibly where a lot of the hard work is done in F1 nowadays. Making the cars more difficult to drive will mean that the results are decided in advance, based on which team and driver have prepared the best for the challenge in their simulator - not on the track.

So is part of the solution to remove the simulator use, alongside cars that are more difficult to drive.

Before someone says, 'yes but that would make the cars extremely difficult to drive or very tricky to master', well yes, that's the whole point of driving F1 cars isn't it?

Which seems to be the case made by these posts:

The problem is it's become too over complicated and things like DRS have been put in as a gimmick to improve racing

We want racing with proper engines, reduced aero and manual gearboxes.

They should look for simple solutions. That’s what F1 has often failed to do

I especially agree with the removal of telemetry, put the emphasis back on the driver and engineer rather than the bloke in the simulator.

All of which undoes the years of development that have been carried out by F1 teams in their cars today. Which seems to be the desire of some:

Yes, it certainly added a bit of unpredictability back in the day when cars weren’t as reliable as they are now

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:

there's something not right about deliberately building a sub standard product. Not exactly the pinnacle of technology is it?

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

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.