How to fix F1?

[Armco Bender]

I would like to see a super track where the cars can hit 400mph on the straights.

[Richard C]

I think this is a great idea...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/r...rules/4497092/

Hopefully those that are looking at the 2021 rules from a different perspective hopefully are different than those who helped craft the rules. Those that crafted the rules will have an inherent handicap of knowing and being clouded by the "intent" of the rules and may not be able to see the unexpected gaps clearly. It may require fresh eyes to spot the issues.

I can imagine that some may complain that this is an attempt to limit creativity. And the answer will be... Yes! The rules are to set boundaries and ideally to allow creativity to exist inside the boundaries. But we all know that the fun is in the grey areas and occasionally when someone is able to find a loophole. For the rule makers.. Loopholes are not good and typically are closed as quickly as possible. Either immediately or maybe for the next season.

In the end, I think the idea her is to prevent a subset of the larger participants finding a significant loophole that gives them a large performance advantage over the rest. The goal... I assume... Is for everyone to have roughly the same experience in that they are building cars that are generally competitive with each other vs. someone being clever "in the wrong way" and walking over everyone else.

Not that loopholes will not exist! But that hopefully they expose some prior to publishing the specs vs. later when teams are doing design.

Richard

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

Electric is not the way forward....

In your view, In my view there is no way forward for any category that will increase the popularity of the sports electric or otherwise. The sole reason Liberty bought F1 was not the sport in itself but the media possibilities when the current contracts finish. They want to leverage the internet and streaming and as long as F1 stays somewhere around where it is in size and participation they will be happy.

[Armco Bender]

They bought a lemon then,since F1's gone to streaming from TV here it may as well be dead.F1 has fallen right off the radar,if people cant see it it will disappear.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think this is a great idea...

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/r...rules/4497092/

...

yeah i also like the logic behind that. its hard enough to get the teams to agree to a rule set without them trying to one up each other behind closed doors. why let all the hard work to make a deal fall apart after half a season (or more likely by winter testing)?

as you say creativity/innovation will probably suffer...to right the ship, however temporarily, maybe that is a worthwhile sacrifice for a couple of seasons. for me it would be.

but it is F1 so for sure the real unintended consequence will be that the teams actually become more creative/innovative as a result and thus will find new more creative/innovative ways to screw everything up!

[Richard C]

I probably should have said my bit about creativity suffering in a different way. I think they want to allow creativity, but within a specific box. Finding a way to wiggle out of the box (loophole) is where they don't want teams to play.

Richard

[chillibowl]

fair fair...keep them all in the sand box as it were.

this is no doubt coming from the perspective of someone who is not an engineer, but for me i tend to see the innovation in F1 as mainly a function of money and resources (shocker), particularity, in respect to the speed with which some can develop, apply, and modify those innovations.

i probably have a romanticized version of the double diffuser story being a product of necessity developed by an massively underfunded Super Aguri team. i thought that was great and then even greater that those engineers found their way to Honda and then Brawn etc etc. great story!

so while i think this is amazing and while i can appreciate Merc's engine as an innovative piece of tech, from a sporting perspective i think of it as if they are playing with...i would never go so far as saying its like cheating but for me, because of their resources, its like they are playing with an unfair advantage.

anyways, long story short, in the the modern context of F1, what would be the difference between being innovative and exploiting a loophole?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

anyways, long story short, in the the modern context of F1, what would be the difference between being innovative and exploiting a loophole?

I think from a team's perspective... no difference. And if I was them, I would try to find loopholes. In the end the rules are "trying" to define the "spirit" of the boundary. But in the end you have to create language that converts the basic "idea" into enforceable boundaries. And loopholes are when the language of the rules fail. Sometimes the sandbox is actually larger than people think as well. So a team may explore a corner others previously felt was out of bounds and then clarification say... that approach is OK.

On a related note, I think sometimes the teams do find loopholes and may try to proactively close them. I think privately conversations happen between the teams and the scrutineers. They ask questions like... "We are thinking about doing X? What are your thoughts?" Sometimes that is to allow them to move forward secretly, but with official or implied permission.

At other times it could be that they have identified an idea, but would prefer to not explore it and want to preclude others from doing so themselves. So they want it closed. I think to sometimes get an official public clarification, it might require an official challenge of a concept to make that happen. Others can speak to the process better than myself (I am sure I am using the wrong terminology here).

My point here is that sometimes the teams want to stay in the sandbox even if they find ways to wiggle out. But looking for the holes is part of the job.

Richard

[Tourer]

Drivetribe piece here that is funnily enough title "how to fix F1". Enjoy

[Peter Mallett]

Just to add some balance this was Maurice Hamilton's response.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MauriceHa...46131105898496

[E.B]

Im not a Clarkson fan i'm afraid. I'll go with Maurice Hamilton on my thoughts.

[S griffin]

Maurice loves F1, so he’s more likely to offer constructive criticism than degrading it

[wnut]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Maurice loves F1, so he’s more likely to offer constructive criticism than degrading it

Maurice however earns his living off his F1 commentary and relies on the powers that be to grant him accreditation for access. Clarkson on the other hand is able to express his personal opinion without fear of losing one of his major income streams.
F1 should perhaps take serious note of Clarkson's opinion, even if they don't like it.

[Richard C]

Clarkson being Clarkson. I find it funny that in a way he is using the Top Gear recipe book here. Just weld some stuff to some cars to toughen them up and let the boys just bash into each other. Good clean fun!

Overall, I find him entertaining in a way, but does anyone take him seriously?

Richard

[chillibowl]

his point about F1 needing a format rethink like cricket does resonate with me.

obviously no idea what the silver bullet to make F1 relevant again is but with over 20 races a year i dont see the harm in using one or two of the races to experiment with some different ideas/formats.

sprinklers, reverse grids, free tire choice race, free PU, sprint race instead of quali day etc etc.

at the least it would generate some more interest and discussion. a break from the same old same old.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

On a related note, I think sometimes the teams do find loopholes and may try to proactively close them. I think privately conversations happen between the teams and the scrutineers. They ask questions like... "We are thinking about doing X? What are your thoughts?" Sometimes that is to allow them to move forward secretly, but with official or implied permission.

At other times it could be that they have identified an idea, but would prefer to not explore it and want to preclude others from doing so themselves. So they want it closed. I think to sometimes get an official public clarification, it might require an official challenge of a concept to make that happen. Others can speak to the process better than myself (I am sure I am using the wrong terminology here).

i have to say i do like the tactical nature of that dynamic. force a team to waste resources, save your own resources, block a path you cant currently afford...its all very Art of War.

so much of the exciting stuff that happens in F1 happens behind closed doors and away from its' fans.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

sprinklers, reverse grids, free tire choice race, free PU, sprint race instead of quali day etc etc.

at the least it would generate some more interest and discussion. a break from the same old same old.

Can you imagine the potential legal implications and possible huge compensation payouts if a serious accident occurred if sprinklers were activated just to "spice up" the race/s. It could form the basis for a legal attack in the event of an accident, claiming that, because the regulators/promoters decided to have a "wet" race, it caused an unnecessary accident/crash.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Can you imagine the potential legal implications and possible huge compensation payouts if a serious accident occurred if sprinklers were activated just to "spice up" the race/s. It could form the basis for a legal attack in the event of an accident, claiming that, because the regulators/promoters decided to have a "wet" race, it caused an unnecessary accident/crash.

Why are sprinklers a liability, but power boosts from electricity, DRS, WRX joker laps, Formula E boosts etc aren't?

[chillibowl]

right!

also...maybe not exactly the same thing but surely the liability issue is not so great as to prevent them from simulating a wet track in order to test and develop wet tires in the first place.

but if they could mitigate the risk more (at Paul Ricard, proper drainage, and obviously not hurricane wet) would you be more or less likely to watch next year's French GP?

it doesn't have to be sprinklers though...like wet weather driving is a skill so to is overtaking so why not reverse grids? of course these are gimmicks but ones that could in theory help put certain skill sets front and center.

on the flip side, if they adopted some of these gimmicks it make just look like an admission that its gonna be professional wrestling from here on out.

[chavez]

Much of the focus has been on giving the following car some short of an advantage to compensate for the loss of downforce experienced when following another car.

Could the car in front be slowed by a downforce reduction system to such a degree that the two cars would have some equality in downforce?

For example, flattening the angle of the main element of the front wing when the following car is within one second in the downforce reduction zones (ie a series of corners) leading on to a straight.

The Maggots and Becketts series of corners leading to the Hanger straight for example.

[coppice]

If Jeremy Clarkson had ever shown the remotest interest in , or displayed any knowledge of Formula 1 , or motorsport in general , his opinion would be interesting. But he hasn't , so it isn't .

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by coppice

If Jeremy Clarkson had ever shown the remotest interest in , or displayed any knowledge of Formula 1 , or motorsport in general , his opinion would be interesting. But he hasn't , so it isn't .

He's actually done that on a number of occasions, not least of which the tribute to Senna that TG did but I don't believe that he lives and breathes it, seems more like a bit of a "fair weather fan" and as the natural-born disruptor and sceptic on all things that he seems to be, modern "corporatised" F1 wouldn't really be his cup of tea.

I put the clip up as a bit of fun really given this thread title and the clip title on YouTube summary were the same.

[S griffin]

And he was a big Gilles Villeneuve fan too. But it would be a bit better to be a bit more constructive about F1

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Why are sprinklers a liability, but power boosts from electricity, DRS, WRX joker laps, Formula E boosts etc aren't?

I am pretty sure that some imaginative lawyer could make a fairly good job of creating a lawsuit if any accident befell a driver under those circumstances, and certainly one against the team.

However, the likelihood of an accident happening on a wet track is considerably higher than on a dry circuit. It could then be, possibly, easier to argue that the person/s taking the decision to artificially wet the track could/might be liable for any resulting accident.

[chillibowl]

surely then the same argument can be made anytime the race director allows drivers to go out in wet conditions, natural or otherwise.

other then negligence or someone intentionally wetting the track to create an accident, does it matter how the track got wet? rather the risk to the drivers is the same regardless of how the track got wet perhaps even more risk if the track is getting wet naturally as there is more uncertainty in nature.

not a lawyer so could be way off in this.