planetf1.com

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Harpo wrote: The main problem with F1 (and sadly, just the main, not the only one), is the cars. Too big, fitted with useless and futureless PU, wrongly sophisticated, and remote controlled (through the remote controlled drivers, nowadays).
As someone wrote it here, it's certainly engineers wet dreams, but, dare I say, the regulations were poorly thought and so the results are poorly designed (no, I won't start a discussion about concept and design philosophy, but, to make it short, when it's too sophisticated, you just failed).

F1 has always been an engineering exercise, both the cars and the drivers are the stars, you can always watch Indycars.

I don't think the solution to people saying they are not happy with the current state of F1 is to tell them to go and watch something else

For me if people want to change F1 from it's core principles then that's not what I want, is F1 really so destitute, I don't see that apart from a few disgruntled fans?

I think there's a strong argument to say F1 has already deviated quite strongly from its core principles and many are advocating a return back from that

What principles would that be?

pokerman wrote: In a sporting contest you don't get rid of anyone on the grounds of them being too good, MotoGP would perhaps be that much better if they banned Marc Marquez?

I'm not actually saying get rid. I'm saying F1 has nothing to fear by them walking away. The product is so bad right now it is time to take risks.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

Zoue wrote: I think in this instance I would lay a good part of the blame at the feet of the manufacturers. They're not averse to making threats if their position is threatened so I think they should take some responsibility for putting F1 in the situation it now finds itself in.

The FIA and LM should also take blame, of course, but to be fair it takes a strong will to ignore the nuclear button the top teams threaten F1 with at seemingly regular intervals and while I personally think they should it's not my multi-million dollar investment that may nosedive if things go pear-shaped. I think the teams, in particular the manufacturers have behaved disgracefully and they have their noses so deep in the trough that they can't see out of it anymore

I was thinking more a certain diminutive elderly former 2nd hand car salesman as the creator of these beasts. He started this rot by throwing millions to the factory backed teams in return for their signatures on contracts and leaving the privateers to scrounge around in the dirt like 2nd class peasants.

It's ironic that Bernie's climb up the F1 ladder included him leading the Formula One Constructor Association (FOCA) teams, which were privateer teams, against the Jean -Marie Balestre led Fédération Internationale du Sport Automobile (FISA), the governing body of F1 that had the support of the 3 manufacturer teams in the sport at the time (Ferrari, Alfa & Renault), in the FISA - FOCA war of the early 80"s, and it ended with him virtually selling the soul of the sport to manufacturers at the behest of the group that has been the backbone of the sport pretty much since 1950, that being the privateer teams.

There's certainly a sense of Deja vu when one reads about how the war started on Wikipedia.

The beginnings of the dispute are numerous, and many of the underlying reasons may be lost in history. The teams (excepting Ferrari and the other major manufacturers – Renault and Alfa Romeo in particular) were of the opinion that their rights and ability to compete against the larger and better funded teams were being negatively affected by a perceived bias on the part of FISA, the controlling organisation, toward the major manufacturers.

Agree that Bernie laid the foundation with his divide and conquer philosophy.

But the seeds of modern F1 were sewn when they voted to bring in the hybrids and everything associated with that. I remember an interview with Whitmarsh where he said they considered twin-turbos at one point as there were concerns about the expense and complications of hybrids, but initially Renault threatening to pull out and then Mercedes falling behind them in wanting to make it "road relevant" forced them all down the hybrid route and the rest is history. Now we have a situation where the manufacturers hold an unprecedented level of power simply by virtue of the fact that nobody but them can either afford or otherwise have the knowledge to build these PUs. F1 can't afford for any of them to pull out because that would concentrate the power even further in the remaining ones as nobody is interested in replacing them. So now if the big boys make a noise they generally get their way.

And I genuinely think that as long as they keep the hybrid technology then that status quo will remain. By putting the tech out of the reach of independents they have changed the DNA of F1 to make it a closed club. Revenue distribution and other fixes are peripheral to that and they need to break the will of the manufacturers by ditching that path, either by mandating some other format or, preferably, by opening up the rules to allow other types of power units to compete in order to attract other participants and take the power away from the teams.

History has shown us that the teams will always vote in their own self-interest rather than that of F1 itself. I hesitate to use absolutes but in this instance I'll make an exception and say that IMO the only way F1 will ever get out of the mess it's in is to take the teams out of the decision-making equation.

It was Jean Todt that initially wanted the green hybrid engines after the engine manufacturers initially wanted twin turbos and only then did Renault put their weight behind it, but keep putting the knife into the manufacturers, also the biggest disparity in respect to the pecking order of the teams is the size of their budgets.

Renault threatened to pull out and that contributed heavily to F1 adopting the hybrid engines and afterwards Mercedes also admitted they were considering the same. And any proposed changes these days tend to be shot down by the big teams so the pecking order remains the same. There is a disparity in finances which absolutely does contribute to the pecking order but the biggest disparity is in whether or not you have an engine manufacturer's backing and without that your chances of winning are almost non-existent

The manufacturers threatened to pull out because they didn't want to continue building what were basically spec engines, like I said the Hybrids were pushed forward by Todt that's what he wanted.

If the chances of a customer winning are almost non-existent then why did both Mercedes and Ferrari refuse to supply Red Bull with engines?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: The point most people have been making is that relatively recent changes are responsible for making F1 worse. So if someone's unhappy with specific teams now it doesn't necessarily follow that they have always been unhappy with them. Of course, they might be, but it's not a given

F1 is mainly worse in competitiveness because it's become more and more professional over the years, when do drivers ever win titles without being in the best or close to best car, there has always been the haves and have nots, it's not like changes are not around the corner in 2021.

I don't agree. I think F1 is worse in competitiveness because unless you're a manufacturer team you have next to no chance and there are only four of those so the odds shrink even further.

And judging by Brundle's article outlined above the teams are already putting the kybosh on the proposed changes and they are likely to be considerably watered down so the status quo remains. And so it will be indefinitely until the FIA/LM grow at least one spine between them

Which has nothing to do with the engines, the kibosh will be about the budget caps.

Brundle's article didn't mention budget caps and mentioned compromises, plural, so likely to be much more than just that. He talked about root and branch changes needed and I think that would be odd terminology to use if all you were talking about was budgets

The main issues are distribution of funds and budget caps and has nothing to do with the engines, who in the paddock do you see bringing up engines as being any kind of problem?

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: In a sporting contest you don't get rid of anyone on the grounds of them being too good, MotoGP would perhaps be that much better if they banned Marc Marquez?

I'm not actually saying get rid. I'm saying F1 has nothing to fear by them walking away. The product is so bad right now it is time to take risks.

Ferrari have massive fan support maybe 50% of F1, the product is so bad because Mercedes are winning if Ferrari were winning I would guess that maybe 90% of these posts wouldn't have been made?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Harpo wrote:

pokerman wrote: The main problem with your F1 utopia will always be Ferrari.

The main problem with F1 (and sadly, just the main, not the only one), is the cars. Too big, fitted with useless and futureless PU, wrongly sophisticated, and remote controlled (through the remote controlled drivers, nowadays).
As someone wrote it here, it's certainly engineers wet dreams, but, dare I say, the regulations were poorly thought and so the results are poorly designed (no, I won't start a discussion about concept and design philosophy, but, to make it short, when it's too sophisticated, you just failed).

F1 has always been an engineering exercise, both the cars and the drivers are the stars, you can always watch Indycars.

I don't think the solution to people saying they are not happy with the current state of F1 is to tell them to go and watch something else

Well actually... I'd say it is. Let's face it, the only way that the current situation changes is if fans turn away from the sport in large numbers. And to be honest if there aren't sweeping changes in 2021 to bring about a closer and fairer competition, I would be strongly tempted to do so myself. As I said above, I already enjoy the F2 much more than the F1 which is a sad state of affairs.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: In a sporting contest you don't get rid of anyone on the grounds of them being too good, MotoGP would perhaps be that much better if they banned Marc Marquez?

I'm not actually saying get rid. I'm saying F1 has nothing to fear by them walking away. The product is so bad right now it is time to take risks.

Ferrari have massive fan support maybe 50% of F1, the product is so bad because Mercedes are winning if Ferrari were winning I would guess that maybe 90% of these posts wouldn't have been made?

Are you joking? Again, I refer you to the 2003 rule changes specifically designed to end Ferrari dominance.

That was after just 3 Championships of it.

Edited to say I bet competetive racing has more fans than Ferrari.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:F1 has always been an engineering exercise, both the cars and the drivers are the stars, you can always watch Indycars.

I don't think the solution to people saying they are not happy with the current state of F1 is to tell them to go and watch something else

For me if people want to change F1 from it's core principles then that's not what I want, is F1 really so destitute, I don't see that apart from a few disgruntled fans?

I think there's a strong argument to say F1 has already deviated quite strongly from its core principles and many are advocating a return back from that

What principles would that be?

well you're the one who brought them up - why don't you tell me?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:I was thinking more a certain diminutive elderly former 2nd hand car salesman as the creator of these beasts. He started this rot by throwing millions to the factory backed teams in return for their signatures on contracts and leaving the privateers to scrounge around in the dirt like 2nd class peasants.

It's ironic that Bernie's climb up the F1 ladder included him leading the Formula One Constructor Association (FOCA) teams, which were privateer teams, against the Jean -Marie Balestre led Fédération Internationale du Sport Automobile (FISA), the governing body of F1 that had the support of the 3 manufacturer teams in the sport at the time (Ferrari, Alfa & Renault), in the FISA - FOCA war of the early 80"s, and it ended with him virtually selling the soul of the sport to manufacturers at the behest of the group that has been the backbone of the sport pretty much since 1950, that being the privateer teams.

There's certainly a sense of Deja vu when one reads about how the war started on Wikipedia.

The beginnings of the dispute are numerous, and many of the underlying reasons may be lost in history. The teams (excepting Ferrari and the other major manufacturers – Renault and Alfa Romeo in particular) were of the opinion that their rights and ability to compete against the larger and better funded teams were being negatively affected by a perceived bias on the part of FISA, the controlling organisation, toward the major manufacturers.

Agree that Bernie laid the foundation with his divide and conquer philosophy.

But the seeds of modern F1 were sewn when they voted to bring in the hybrids and everything associated with that. I remember an interview with Whitmarsh where he said they considered twin-turbos at one point as there were concerns about the expense and complications of hybrids, but initially Renault threatening to pull out and then Mercedes falling behind them in wanting to make it "road relevant" forced them all down the hybrid route and the rest is history. Now we have a situation where the manufacturers hold an unprecedented level of power simply by virtue of the fact that nobody but them can either afford or otherwise have the knowledge to build these PUs. F1 can't afford for any of them to pull out because that would concentrate the power even further in the remaining ones as nobody is interested in replacing them. So now if the big boys make a noise they generally get their way.

And I genuinely think that as long as they keep the hybrid technology then that status quo will remain. By putting the tech out of the reach of independents they have changed the DNA of F1 to make it a closed club. Revenue distribution and other fixes are peripheral to that and they need to break the will of the manufacturers by ditching that path, either by mandating some other format or, preferably, by opening up the rules to allow other types of power units to compete in order to attract other participants and take the power away from the teams.

History has shown us that the teams will always vote in their own self-interest rather than that of F1 itself. I hesitate to use absolutes but in this instance I'll make an exception and say that IMO the only way F1 will ever get out of the mess it's in is to take the teams out of the decision-making equation.

It was Jean Todt that initially wanted the green hybrid engines after the engine manufacturers initially wanted twin turbos and only then did Renault put their weight behind it, but keep putting the knife into the manufacturers, also the biggest disparity in respect to the pecking order of the teams is the size of their budgets.

Renault threatened to pull out and that contributed heavily to F1 adopting the hybrid engines and afterwards Mercedes also admitted they were considering the same. And any proposed changes these days tend to be shot down by the big teams so the pecking order remains the same. There is a disparity in finances which absolutely does contribute to the pecking order but the biggest disparity is in whether or not you have an engine manufacturer's backing and without that your chances of winning are almost non-existent

The manufacturers threatened to pull out because they didn't want to continue building what were basically spec engines, like I said the Hybrids were pushed forward by Todt that's what he wanted.

If the chances of a customer winning are almost non-existent then why did both Mercedes and Ferrari refuse to supply Red Bull with engines?

I've no doubt the way Red Bull treated their engine partner, who had supplied them with the means to win four driver and four manufacturer titles, had more than a little to do with it.

Both RD and Marko have publicly stated that in order to win you cannot be just a customer. But waht do they know, eh?

Todt may well have raised the idea for the hybrids, but I don't recall him saying he would shut down the series if it didn't happen. It was Renault initially who refused to compromise and then Merc and the others followed suit. And now it's the manufacturers who tend to block any attempt to change the status quo and zealously guard their position in the sport.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:F1 is mainly worse in competitiveness because it's become more and more professional over the years, when do drivers ever win titles without being in the best or close to best car, there has always been the haves and have nots, it's not like changes are not around the corner in 2021.

I don't agree. I think F1 is worse in competitiveness because unless you're a manufacturer team you have next to no chance and there are only four of those so the odds shrink even further.

And judging by Brundle's article outlined above the teams are already putting the kybosh on the proposed changes and they are likely to be considerably watered down so the status quo remains. And so it will be indefinitely until the FIA/LM grow at least one spine between them

Which has nothing to do with the engines, the kibosh will be about the budget caps.

Brundle's article didn't mention budget caps and mentioned compromises, plural, so likely to be much more than just that. He talked about root and branch changes needed and I think that would be odd terminology to use if all you were talking about was budgets

The main issues are distribution of funds and budget caps and has nothing to do with the engines, who in the paddock do you see bringing up engines as being any kind of problem?

Those are the main issues in your opinion. I disagree and there are plenty of people who a simple Google search will return who have gone on record saying the current technology is far too complicated for its own good and who advocate a return to simpler, more cost-effective racing

$250 million budget cap.
If teams want to go over that let them.
They pay a 30% tax on every dollar over the cap that they spend which gets given to the bottom 3 teams in the constructors championship.

Want to Spend $650 million? Go for it.. but your getting taxed an extra $120 million which is going into your competitors pocket.

Edit: I'd also get rid of "engine modes" and make the MUG-H a spec part.

Glasnost wrote:$250 million budget cap.
If teams want to go over that let them.
They pay a 30% tax on every dollar over the cap that they spend which gets given to the bottom 3 teams in the constructors championship.

Want to Spend $650 million? Go for it.. but your getting taxed an extra $120 million which is going into your competitors pocket.

Edit: I'd also get rid of "engine modes" and make the MUG-H a spec part.

I'll be very interested to find out how this proposed budget cap is going to be policed.

In any sport where a budget / salary cap's in place, I'd lay money that for every team that gets caught going over the cap, there'd be a least 1 more that doesn't.

I'd say even now there'd be teams who'd preliminary plans in place to funnel money here & there in an effort to spend outside of the cap.

I have a theory going in my head that a budget cap could actually make things worse for the independent teams than they are now. Lets use RB for an example. If a $250m cap's in place & with RB having 2 teams in series, that effectively gives them a cap of $500m. Same with Ferrari & Alfa.

Now some will use the old argument that RB & TR are run as separate teams, & I agree to a point but lets remember what CH said when RB were tossing up which engine they'd use this year. He said something like " when we laid the data from Honda out with the data from Renault, we could see the potential of the Honda". Now seeing as how RB signed with Honda part way through last season, that means RB & TR were sharing data, which above all else I though was illegal. I'd think the same thing would be happening with Ferrari 7 lfa too.

Jezza13 wrote:

Glasnost wrote:$250 million budget cap.
If teams want to go over that let them.
They pay a 30% tax on every dollar over the cap that they spend which gets given to the bottom 3 teams in the constructors championship.

Want to Spend $650 million? Go for it.. but your getting taxed an extra $120 million which is going into your competitors pocket.

Edit: I'd also get rid of "engine modes" and make the MUG-H a spec part.

I'll be very interested to find out how this proposed budget cap is going to be policed.

In any sport where a budget / salary cap's in place, I'd lay money that for every team that gets caught going over the cap, there'd be a least 1 more that doesn't.

I'd say even now there'd be teams who'd preliminary plans in place to funnel money here & there in an effort to spend outside of the cap.

I have a theory going in my head that a budget cap could actually make things worse for the independent teams than they are now. Lets use RB for an example. If a $250m cap's in place & with RB having 2 teams in series, that effectively gives them a cap of $500m. Same with Ferrari & Alfa.

Now some will use the old argument that RB & TR are run as separate teams, & I agree to a point but lets remember what CH said when RB were tossing up which engine they'd use this year. He said something like " when we laid the data from Honda out with the data from Renault, we could see the potential of the Honda". Now seeing as how RB signed with Honda part way through last season, that means RB & TR were sharing data, which above all else I though was illegal. I'd think the same thing would be happening with Ferrari 7 lfa too.

I have doubts the budget cap will actually achieve what it intends to do and I'd be very surprised if the manufacturers in particular wouldn't find ways to circumvent it. I think people who are expecting some sort of Utopia if and when it will be implemented are going to be sorely disappointed and it won't change things that much. As long as the technical rules are what they are things will never improve

Basically what I would like from formula one is cars circa 1995. Very light, very fast, very loud, moving around a lot on the edge and difficult to drive. But with close competition.

Back in 95 you could get away with big gaps between cars because the consistency of the teams wasn't there, reliability was poorer and drivers could make one mistake and it would be race over. We don't have that now so we need much closer racing.

pokerman wrote:

Harpo wrote:

pokerman wrote: The main problem with your F1 utopia will always be Ferrari.

The main problem with F1 (and sadly, just the main, not the only one), is the cars. Too big, fitted with useless and futureless PU, wrongly sophisticated, and remote controlled (through the remote controlled drivers, nowadays).
As someone wrote it here, it's certainly engineers wet dreams, but, dare I say, the regulations were poorly thought and so the results are poorly designed (no, I won't start a discussion about concept and design philosophy, but, to make it short, when it's too sophisticated, you just failed).

F1 has always been an engineering exercise, both the cars and the drivers are the stars, you can always watch Indycars.

Did I say it was not, or that I don't want it to be. I personally think that the most clever design is the simplest one. And by experience, I can tell you that most of the time it's not the trend that highly specialized technicians and specialists follow.
I'll stick to what I wrote. Regulations are stupid, and the path F1 and the F1 technicians started to follow years ago is stupid too. The whole thing is poorly thought and poorly designed. Which doesn't mean that the highly-specialized technicians are not very good at what they do. Just that what they do is useless and developped along a wrong direction.
And believe me, reduce a clever idea to its simplest and most effective form or device, is a more difficult engineering exercise than endlessly add hyper-sophisticated thingamajigs all over the place to solve problems created by the previous addition of hyper-sophisticated thingamajigs.
The more a device is complicated, the more the F1 fans (and generally techno-geeks) are awed, I'm not.

mikeyg123 wrote:Basically what I would like from formula one is cars circa 1995. Very light, very fast, very loud, moving around a lot on the edge and difficult to drive. But with close competition.

Back in 95 you could get away with big gaps between cars because the consistency of the teams wasn't there, reliability was poorer and drivers could make one mistake and it would be race over. We don't have that now so we need much closer racing.

I agree, but I can also see the other side. Race over meant a lot of trouble for the teams. With the tarmac run offs they can rejoin the race and lose a lot of places, which is a punishment enough, so that we don't have cases of races ending with less than 10 cars like before, better for the fans too.

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Basically what I would like from formula one is cars circa 1995. Very light, very fast, very loud, moving around a lot on the edge and difficult to drive. But with close competition.

Back in 95 you could get away with big gaps between cars because the consistency of the teams wasn't there, reliability was poorer and drivers could make one mistake and it would be race over. We don't have that now so we need much closer racing.

I agree, but I can also see the other side. Race over meant a lot of trouble for the teams. With the tarmac run offs they can rejoin the race and lose a lot of places, which is a punishment enough, so that we don't have cases of races ending with less than 10 cars like before, better for the fans too.

I'm not against that but if you take out that variable then you need to make sure the excitement is coming from something else.

And 99 times out of 100 when a driver leaves the circuit he rejoins with almost no time lost at all.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Basically what I would like from formula one is cars circa 1995. Very light, very fast, very loud, moving around a lot on the edge and difficult to drive. But with close competition.

Back in 95 you could get away with big gaps between cars because the consistency of the teams wasn't there, reliability was poorer and drivers could make one mistake and it would be race over. We don't have that now so we need much closer racing.

I agree, but I can also see the other side. Race over meant a lot of trouble for the teams. With the tarmac run offs they can rejoin the race and lose a lot of places, which is a punishment enough, so that we don't have cases of races ending with less than 10 cars like before, better for the fans too.

I'm not against that but if you take out that variable then you need to make sure the excitement is coming from something else.

And 99 times out of 100 when a driver leaves the circuit he rejoins with almost no time lost at all.

That's very true, they seem to lose little time compared to the other cars if they do not flatspot their tyres. This should be the solution, make them lose time and/or positions as a deterrent to take a stroll outside of the white lines. I cannot think how they will achieve that, maybe put small speed bumps in the run off areas.

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Basically what I would like from formula one is cars circa 1995. Very light, very fast, very loud, moving around a lot on the edge and difficult to drive. But with close competition.

Back in 95 you could get away with big gaps between cars because the consistency of the teams wasn't there, reliability was poorer and drivers could make one mistake and it would be race over. We don't have that now so we need much closer racing.

I agree, but I can also see the other side. Race over meant a lot of trouble for the teams. With the tarmac run offs they can rejoin the race and lose a lot of places, which is a punishment enough, so that we don't have cases of races ending with less than 10 cars like before, better for the fans too.

I'm not against that but if you take out that variable then you need to make sure the excitement is coming from something else.

And 99 times out of 100 when a driver leaves the circuit he rejoins with almost no time lost at all.

That's very true, they seem to lose little time compared to the other cars if they do not flatspot their tyres. This should be the solution, make them lose time and/or positions as a deterrent to take a stroll outside of the white lines. I cannot think how they will achieve that, maybe put small speed bumps in the run off areas.

How about a 3 metre wide strip of gravel or grass surrounding the edge of the track?

The biggest problem with tarmac run off is that it completely changes the way a driver can approach a corner. An average driver can now try and take every corner like a top driver because if he goes wide it doesn't matter. It nullifies the skill of being able to drive right on the edge lap after lap without making a mistake.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Basically what I would like from formula one is cars circa 1995. Very light, very fast, very loud, moving around a lot on the edge and difficult to drive. But with close competition.

Back in 95 you could get away with big gaps between cars because the consistency of the teams wasn't there, reliability was poorer and drivers could make one mistake and it would be race over. We don't have that now so we need much closer racing.

I agree, but I can also see the other side. Race over meant a lot of trouble for the teams. With the tarmac run offs they can rejoin the race and lose a lot of places, which is a punishment enough, so that we don't have cases of races ending with less than 10 cars like before, better for the fans too.

I'm not against that but if you take out that variable then you need to make sure the excitement is coming from something else.

And 99 times out of 100 when a driver leaves the circuit he rejoins with almost no time lost at all.

That's very true, they seem to lose little time compared to the other cars if they do not flatspot their tyres. This should be the solution, make them lose time and/or positions as a deterrent to take a stroll outside of the white lines. I cannot think how they will achieve that, maybe put small speed bumps in the run off areas.

How about a 3 metre wide strip of gravel or grass surrounding the edge of the track?

The biggest problem with tarmac run off is that it completely changes the way a driver can approach a corner. An average driver can now try and take every corner like a top driver because if he goes wide it doesn't matter. It nullifies the skill of being able to drive right on the edge lap after lap without making a mistake.

Grass will make them spin and depending where it is they may end up on the wall. Gravel can damage the car and also, they can bring it on the track as witnessed last weekend.

I will not try to be an expert on this, I just can't think of anything that would be the perfect solution.

And I fully agree with your last sentence, it does make them go all out without worrying about consequences

Siao7 wrote: Grass will make them spin and depending where it is they may end up on the wall. Gravel can damage the car and also, they can bring it on the track as witnessed last weekend.

I will not try to be an expert on this, I just can't think of anything that would be the perfect solution.

And I fully agree with your last sentence, it does make them go all out without worrying about consequences

Why is it a problem if the spin or damage the car after making a mistake? If you make a mistake I don't see why there shouldn't be a risk of that happening?

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Grass will make them spin and depending where it is they may end up on the wall. Gravel can damage the car and also, they can bring it on the track as witnessed last weekend.

I will not try to be an expert on this, I just can't think of anything that would be the perfect solution.

And I fully agree with your last sentence, it does make them go all out without worrying about consequences

Why is it a problem if the spin or damage the car after making a mistake? If you make a mistake I don't see why there shouldn't be a risk of that happening?

I thought I addressed that in my first post. It is a huge expense for the teams to break the cars, I don't think this needs further explaining. So I understand if they do not want to do that, along with avoiding situation where only a few cars racing by the end of the race. I am not saying I agree with it, there should be some kind of penalty, but the smaller teams can be crippled by these costs.

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Grass will make them spin and depending where it is they may end up on the wall. Gravel can damage the car and also, they can bring it on the track as witnessed last weekend.

I will not try to be an expert on this, I just can't think of anything that would be the perfect solution.

And I fully agree with your last sentence, it does make them go all out without worrying about consequences

Why is it a problem if the spin or damage the car after making a mistake? If you make a mistake I don't see why there shouldn't be a risk of that happening?

I thought I addressed that in my first post. It is a huge expense for the teams to break the cars, I don't think this needs further explaining. So I understand if they do not want to do that, along with avoiding situation where only a few cars racing by the end of the race. I am not saying I agree with it, there should be some kind of penalty, but the smaller teams can be crippled by these costs.

Then hire better drivers who won't wreck the cars. Teams used to make it work when we had gravel before.

TBH at this point I think we need to be doing things the teams don't like.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Grass will make them spin and depending where it is they may end up on the wall. Gravel can damage the car and also, they can bring it on the track as witnessed last weekend.

I will not try to be an expert on this, I just can't think of anything that would be the perfect solution.

And I fully agree with your last sentence, it does make them go all out without worrying about consequences

Why is it a problem if the spin or damage the car after making a mistake? If you make a mistake I don't see why there shouldn't be a risk of that happening?

I thought I addressed that in my first post. It is a huge expense for the teams to break the cars, I don't think this needs further explaining. So I understand if they do not want to do that, along with avoiding situation where only a few cars racing by the end of the race. I am not saying I agree with it, there should be some kind of penalty, but the smaller teams can be crippled by these costs.

Then hire better drivers who won't wreck the cars. Teams used to make it work when we had gravel before.

TBH at this point I think we need to be doing things the teams don't like.

They can't, they don't have the money as they have to pay for the wrecked cars!!!

Put few things like this on the other side of the white lines...

Don't change the rules on the the car!... Safety yes!!!

Zoue wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

Zoue wrote:
And unless you're a manufacturer, you're just not going to win, which means winners come from an ever-dwindling pool. There have always been different levels in F1 but to the best of my recollection never have there been so few different winners across such an extended period as there have been in the hybrid era. The lack of variety is something that is really beginning to gall for many

The big issue here is what's stopping the privateer / non factory teams from competing for wins. It's not bad luck, lack of resources or inferior personnel or plant. The problem is actually structural.

Thanks to these disgraceful engines & accompanying regulations that surround them, the discriminatory prize money distribution process & the control they have on the sport, the factory / manufacturer team have virtually turned F1 into a closed shop where they're almost guaranteed to be unchallenged for podium positions. They've locked the doors to the asylum & said to the other inmates" Right, we're in control now".

The result of this means those team reap most of the rewards when it comes to the prize money & gives them a rails run in the fight for the sponsorship dollar. It allows them to have the power & influence at the negotiation table with the FIA & LM plus also the ability to sign & corral the best young drivers via their various YDP's. All this means the gap between the between the have's & have not's remains unchanged, ensuring the vicious circle continues to roll on.

I've never held out much hope on the 2021 regs being the new dawn of F1 some people seem to think they'll be. The factory teams don't want to surrender control of the sport they spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying.

It's my belief this sport is on the precipice of being terminal & what happens in 2021 could be the final diagnosis. To save the sport & protect their investment, LM might need to make some tough decisions if the top teams don't want to play ball.

Fully agree that the Manufacturers' stranglehold on the sport is one of the biggest issues, but until the FIA and LM grow a pair that won't change.

What are the options for Liberty though?

If they push the manufacturer / factory teams too far, they risk losing, in an absolute worst cast scenario, Merc, Ferrari, Renault, Red Bull, Toro Rosso & Alfa Romeo. That's over 1/2 the field and all the engine suppliers gone & with them the sport.

If they change nothing then the future of the sport remains in the hands of teams only interested in their own self interests & it dies a slow death anyway.

From the little I know of the situation, if I were Liberty / FIA, i'd be talking to the likes of Cosworth, Illmore, Judd, Mugen etc , & maybe along with Ferrari, & say " Look, we want to change the engine formula in 2021, if we wanted to change it to a, lets say, affordable, noisy, 1000 hp V8 Turbo engine with a simple hybrid system, would you consider becoming a supplier? Could maybe invite the likes of BMW, Ford, GM or whoever else too.

Once there's consensus of the engine formula, sit Merc, Renault, Honda down & say, "This is the way were going with the 2021 engines, we have a MOU with these engine suppliers that they'd be prepared to supply engines if required, do what you want with that information.

If only Merc & Renault decide to pack up & go as participants in 2021, that'll leave us with Ferrari & privateer teams, not the first time F1 has been in that situation before & a totally recoverable situation.

I'm pretty sure the sport has never been in this situation before where the leading teams were all manufacturer / factory teams who were also the engine suppliers to most of the grid &, at least in RB & Ferrari's case, had full 100% control of at least 1 other team on the grid.

The long term future of sport is, IMO, quite dire & it could take some drastic measures from Liberty to save it if the manufacturer / factory teams don't want to change.

Jezza13 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

Zoue wrote:
And unless you're a manufacturer, you're just not going to win, which means winners come from an ever-dwindling pool. There have always been different levels in F1 but to the best of my recollection never have there been so few different winners across such an extended period as there have been in the hybrid era. The lack of variety is something that is really beginning to gall for many

The big issue here is what's stopping the privateer / non factory teams from competing for wins. It's not bad luck, lack of resources or inferior personnel or plant. The problem is actually structural.

Thanks to these disgraceful engines & accompanying regulations that surround them, the discriminatory prize money distribution process & the control they have on the sport, the factory / manufacturer team have virtually turned F1 into a closed shop where they're almost guaranteed to be unchallenged for podium positions. They've locked the doors to the asylum & said to the other inmates" Right, we're in control now".

The result of this means those team reap most of the rewards when it comes to the prize money & gives them a rails run in the fight for the sponsorship dollar. It allows them to have the power & influence at the negotiation table with the FIA & LM plus also the ability to sign & corral the best young drivers via their various YDP's. All this means the gap between the between the have's & have not's remains unchanged, ensuring the vicious circle continues to roll on.

I've never held out much hope on the 2021 regs being the new dawn of F1 some people seem to think they'll be. The factory teams don't want to surrender control of the sport they spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying.

It's my belief this sport is on the precipice of being terminal & what happens in 2021 could be the final diagnosis. To save the sport & protect their investment, LM might need to make some tough decisions if the top teams don't want to play ball.

Fully agree that the Manufacturers' stranglehold on the sport is one of the biggest issues, but until the FIA and LM grow a pair that won't change.

What are the options for Liberty though?

If they push the manufacturer / factory teams too far, they risk losing, in an absolute worst cast scenario, Merc, Renault, Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Ferrari & Alfa Romeo. That's over 1/2 the field and all the engine suppliers gone & with them the sport.

If they change nothing then the future of the sport remains in the hands of teams only interested in their own self interests & it dies a slow death anyway.

From the little I know of the situation, if I were Liberty / FIA, i'd be talking to the likes of Cosworth, Illmore, Judd, Mugen etc , & maybe along with Ferrari, & say " Look, we want to change the engine formula in 2021, if we wanted to change it to a, lets say, affordable, noisy, 1000 hp V8 Turbo engine with a simple hybrid system, would you consider becoming a supplier? Could maybe invite the likes of BMW, Ford, GM or whoever else too.

Once there's consensus of the engine formula, sit Merc, Renault, Honda down & say, "This is the way were going with the 2021 engines, we have a MOU with these engine suppliers that they'd be prepared to supply engines if required, do what you want with that information.

If only Merc & Renault decide to pack up & go as participants in 2021, that'll leave us with Ferrari & privateer teams, not the first time F1 has been in that situation before & a totally recoverable situation.

I'm pretty sure the sport has never been in this situation before where the leading teams were all manufacturer / factory teams who were also the engine suppliers to most of the grid &, at least in RB & Ferrari's case, had full 100% control of at least 1 other team on the grid.

The long term future of sport is, IMO, quite dire & it could take some drastic measures from Liberty to save it if the manufacturer / factory teams don't want to change.

Honda & Chevy provide twin turbos to Indy, so I think even the worst case scenario wouldn't leave F1 without some form of propulsion!

But I think you make some good points. There is a risk for LM/FIA that the big teams may pack up and go, but OTOH the more they let the manufacturers get entrenched in their powerbase the harder it's gong to be. They need to do something to break the deadlock or it will just keep getting worse.

I think you're right that they should be talking to other suppliers behind the scenes. But the FIA is also complicit in the hybrid obsession and until they move away from that I don't see that anything they do will matter as other manufacturers simply won't be interested. Both WEC and F1 have regulations that insist on hybrids and both of those are poorer for it - WEC has a single entrant in the top class! This is racing? And yet the FIA have drawn up plans for a new hyperclass for next season which - wait for it - must also have hybrid engines! It's a completely irrational obsession and it's turning top flight motor racing into little more than a parade.

I really think if they want to tackle the imbalance in F1 they should open up the regs instead of trying to legislate everything to death. But unlike WEC they shouldn't be making different classes with different allowances. They should set maximum weights, dimensions and probably fuel allowances and maybe even dynamo power (as well as aero maximums in terms of wings etc and restrictions on any form of electronic aids) for all and have them compete on the same playing field. As I think mikeyg123 pointed out above the cars are too bloated now and much of that is because of the technology they carry. Minimum weight has increased nearly 50% on cars from the 80s. So strip it back to something which makes the cars fast but nimble again. Let them use hybrids if they want but let them also use any other technology they see fit, as long as it doesn't increase the maximums outlined above. Other manufacturers have already stated that they would be interested if the engine rules were different, so have those discussions behind closed doors - which, hopefully, they are doing - and then present to the current teams in the knowledge that if they pull out others will be there to take their place. And by opening up the regs then it also removes any legitimate objection the manufacturers would have for using what they want as they can still use hybrids if they want to, as long as they can make them light enough!

I have some sympathy for LM as there is considerable risk in whatever choices they make. And there's a real risk that the big boys may form a breakaway series. But I don't see anyone joining other than Mercedes and Ferrari, tbh. Renault have shown they are simply not good enough and it's doubtful they would want to be eternal whipping boys, while who among the midfield would want to join a series where they would be all but guaranteed to be also-rans? Red Bull have also been quite vocal about the hybrids before, although of course their view may change now they are partnered with Honda, and there is also a risk for any potential breakaway that it may bomb as others like them have bombed in the past - it will take a lot to challenge the mystique and tradition of F1.

I don't know if any of the above is feasible, I really don't. But like you I fear that F1 is on a self-destruct mission if it continues down its current path and I feel they have to do something before it's too late So many experienced F1 alumni have said more or less the same and it's astonishing that their voices have been completely ignored.

Jezza13 wrote: What are the options for Liberty though?
If they push the manufacturer / factory teams too far, they risk losing, in an absolute worst cast scenario, Merc, Renault, Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Ferrari & Alfa Romeo. That's over 1/2 the field and all the engine suppliers gone & with them the sport.
If they change nothing then the future of the sport remains in the hands of teams only interested in their own self interests & it dies a slow death anyway.
From the little I know of the situation, if I were Liberty / FIA, i'd be talking to the likes of Cosworth, Illmore, Judd, Mugen etc , & maybe along with Ferrari, & say " Look, we want to change the engine formula in 2021, if we wanted to change it to a, lets say, affordable, noisy, 1000 hp V8 Turbo engine with a simple hybrid system, would you consider becoming a supplier? Could maybe invite the likes of BMW, Ford, GM or whoever else too.
Once there's consensus of the engine formula, sit Merc, Renault, Honda down & say, "This is the way were going with the 2021 engines, we have a MOU with these engine suppliers that they'd be prepared to supply engines if required, do what you want with that information.
If only Merc & Renault decide to pack up & go as participants in 2021, that'll leave us with Ferrari & privateer teams, not the first time F1 has been in that situation before & a totally recoverable situation.
I'm pretty sure the sport has never been in this situation before where the leading teams were all manufacturer / factory teams who were also the engine suppliers to most of the grid &, at least in RB & Ferrari's case, had full 100% control of at least 1 other team on the grid.
The long term future of sport is, IMO, quite dire & it could take some drastic measures from Liberty to save it if the manufacturer / factory teams don't want to change.

Zoue wrote:Honda & Chevy provide twin turbos to Indy, so I think even the worst case scenario wouldn't leave F1 without some form of propulsion!

Yeah that'd have to be a worst case scenario Zoue. Would F1 really want the same engine as another high level open wheel category? May be ok as a short term fix, but I don't think it's an ideal medium to long term solution. I also don't believe Honda & Chevy would be too interested in doing it for the same reason but I guess that's where Mugen & Illmore could step in.

Zoue wrote:I think you're right that they should be talking to other suppliers behind the scenes. But the FIA is also complicit in the hybrid obsession and until they move away from that I don't see that anything they do will matter as other manufacturers simply won't be interested. Both WEC and F1 have regulations that insist on hybrids and both of those are poorer for it - WEC has a single entrant in the top class! This is racing? And yet the FIA have drawn up plans for a new hyperclass for next season which - wait for it - must also have hybrid engines! It's a completely irrational obsession and it's turning top flight motor racing into little more than a parade.

Surely there's enough evidence on the table that the great hybrid experiment is an abject failure. The FIA & the manufacturers wanted these dumb engines because they wanted them to be "road relevant". I may be ignorant, but I can't see the day when we'll have Gordon entering London in his C class Merc and have his sat nav voice say "Ok Gordon, entering heavy traffic, select strat mode 1. That's strat mode 1". or we'll have dear 68 year old June driving down the on ramp of the freeway with that same voice saying, " Ok June, under freeway conditions, party mode is available. Repeat, party mode is available". Or we'll see Clive driving the back roasds of his local town doing a bit of energy harvesting in his Renault Clio. It has to be one or the other. If the FIA & engine suppliers want road relevant engines, then lose the bells & whistles, drop about 700hp & make 1 engine last at least an entire season. If not, then get rid of these engines altogether. They've added nothing to the sport & have only contributed to the dire situation the sport finds itself in now.

Zoue wrote:I really think if they want to tackle the imbalance in F1 they should open up the regs instead of trying to legislate everything to death. But unlike WEC they shouldn't be making different classes with different allowances. They should set maximum weights, dimensions and probably fuel allowances and maybe even dynamo power (as well as aero maximums in terms of wings etc and restrictions on any form of electronic aids) for all and have them compete on the same playing field. As I think mikeyg123 pointed out above the cars are too bloated now and much of that is because of the technology they carry. Minimum weight has increased nearly 50% on cars from the 80s. So strip it back to something which makes the cars fast but nimble again. Let them use hybrids if they want but let them also use any other technology they see fit, as long as it doesn't increase the maximums outlined above. Other manufacturers have already stated that they would be interested if the engine rules were different, so have those discussions behind closed doors - which, hopefully, they are doing - and then present to the current teams in the knowledge that if they pull out others will be there to take their place. And by opening up the regs then it also removes any legitimate objection the manufacturers would have for using what they want as they can still use hybrids if they want to, as long as they can make them light enough!

If the sport is going to have a budget cap then I don't think there's any option but to open up the regs. It'd be lunacy to introduce a budget cap with tight regulations. The result of that would simply to exasperate the sad state the sports in now. You either have a budget cap with open regs, or tight regs with no cap. To have a cap with tight regs would be the worst possible scenario. We're very much in agreement with the engine regs. Have just a few basic requirements to ensure competitiveness and let the teams find their own supplier. If nothing else we'll have a grid full of teams controlling their own destiny and a series where the a few select participants don't call the shots.

Zoue wrote:I have some sympathy for LM as there is considerable risk in whatever choices they make. And there's a real risk that the big boys may form a breakaway series. But I don't see anyone joining other than Mercedes and Ferrari, tbh. Renault have shown they are simply not good enough and it's doubtful they would want to be eternal whipping boys, while who among the midfield would want to join a series where they would be all but guaranteed to be also-rans? Red Bull have also been quite vocal about the hybrids before, although of course their view may change now they are partnered with Honda, and there is also a risk for any potential breakaway that it may bomb as others like them have bombed in the past - it will take a lot to challenge the mystique and tradition of F1.

Well if a breakaway was to occur the first thing I would do if I were Liberty would be to sign exclusivity agreements with all class 1 circuits, race promoters, broadcasters & national motor racing associations for at least 3 years. That should put a nice dent in the breakaway series plans.

Zoue wrote:I don't know if any of the above is feasible, I really don't. But like you I fear that F1 is on a self-destruct mission if it continues down its current path and I feel they have to do something before it's too late So many experienced F1 alumni have said more or less the same and it's astonishing that their voices have been completely ignored.

The 2021 regs will tell us a lot. This might be the last chance for the sport to do something to save itself from terminal decline. If Liberty continues to cede ground to the manufacture / factory teams then I don't know what the future of the sport will hold but I'm not comfortable with the thought that it'll be a positive future.

j man wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Harpo wrote:

pokerman wrote: The main problem with your F1 utopia will always be Ferrari.

The main problem with F1 (and sadly, just the main, not the only one), is the cars. Too big, fitted with useless and futureless PU, wrongly sophisticated, and remote controlled (through the remote controlled drivers, nowadays).
As someone wrote it here, it's certainly engineers wet dreams, but, dare I say, the regulations were poorly thought and so the results are poorly designed (no, I won't start a discussion about concept and design philosophy, but, to make it short, when it's too sophisticated, you just failed).

F1 has always been an engineering exercise, both the cars and the drivers are the stars, you can always watch Indycars.

I don't think the solution to people saying they are not happy with the current state of F1 is to tell them to go and watch something else

Well actually... I'd say it is. Let's face it, the only way that the current situation changes is if fans turn away from the sport in large numbers. And to be honest if there aren't sweeping changes in 2021 to bring about a closer and fairer competition, I would be strongly tempted to do so myself. As I said above, I already enjoy the F2 much more than the F1 which is a sad state of affairs.

You can never please everybody

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/tv-f ... 5/4325885/

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: In a sporting contest you don't get rid of anyone on the grounds of them being too good, MotoGP would perhaps be that much better if they banned Marc Marquez?

I'm not actually saying get rid. I'm saying F1 has nothing to fear by them walking away. The product is so bad right now it is time to take risks.

Ferrari have massive fan support maybe 50% of F1, the product is so bad because Mercedes are winning if Ferrari were winning I would guess that maybe 90% of these posts wouldn't have been made?

Are you joking? Again, I refer you to the 2003 rule changes specifically designed to end Ferrari dominance.

That was after just 3 Championships of it.

Edited to say I bet competetive racing has more fans than Ferrari.

I could have said if Red Bull were winning, anybody that wasn't Mercedes.

My reference to Ferrari was you saying F1 has nothing to fear about Ferrari walking away with their 50% F1 fan base.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I don't think the solution to people saying they are not happy with the current state of F1 is to tell them to go and watch something else

For me if people want to change F1 from it's core principles then that's not what I want, is F1 really so destitute, I don't see that apart from a few disgruntled fans?

I think there's a strong argument to say F1 has already deviated quite strongly from its core principles and many are advocating a return back from that

What principles would that be?

well you're the one who brought them up - why don't you tell me?

You specifically said F1 has deviated away from it's core principles how can I know what you're referring to?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Agree that Bernie laid the foundation with his divide and conquer philosophy.

But the seeds of modern F1 were sewn when they voted to bring in the hybrids and everything associated with that. I remember an interview with Whitmarsh where he said they considered twin-turbos at one point as there were concerns about the expense and complications of hybrids, but initially Renault threatening to pull out and then Mercedes falling behind them in wanting to make it "road relevant" forced them all down the hybrid route and the rest is history. Now we have a situation where the manufacturers hold an unprecedented level of power simply by virtue of the fact that nobody but them can either afford or otherwise have the knowledge to build these PUs. F1 can't afford for any of them to pull out because that would concentrate the power even further in the remaining ones as nobody is interested in replacing them. So now if the big boys make a noise they generally get their way.

And I genuinely think that as long as they keep the hybrid technology then that status quo will remain. By putting the tech out of the reach of independents they have changed the DNA of F1 to make it a closed club. Revenue distribution and other fixes are peripheral to that and they need to break the will of the manufacturers by ditching that path, either by mandating some other format or, preferably, by opening up the rules to allow other types of power units to compete in order to attract other participants and take the power away from the teams.

History has shown us that the teams will always vote in their own self-interest rather than that of F1 itself. I hesitate to use absolutes but in this instance I'll make an exception and say that IMO the only way F1 will ever get out of the mess it's in is to take the teams out of the decision-making equation.

It was Jean Todt that initially wanted the green hybrid engines after the engine manufacturers initially wanted twin turbos and only then did Renault put their weight behind it, but keep putting the knife into the manufacturers, also the biggest disparity in respect to the pecking order of the teams is the size of their budgets.

Renault threatened to pull out and that contributed heavily to F1 adopting the hybrid engines and afterwards Mercedes also admitted they were considering the same. And any proposed changes these days tend to be shot down by the big teams so the pecking order remains the same. There is a disparity in finances which absolutely does contribute to the pecking order but the biggest disparity is in whether or not you have an engine manufacturer's backing and without that your chances of winning are almost non-existent

The manufacturers threatened to pull out because they didn't want to continue building what were basically spec engines, like I said the Hybrids were pushed forward by Todt that's what he wanted.

If the chances of a customer winning are almost non-existent then why did both Mercedes and Ferrari refuse to supply Red Bull with engines?

I've no doubt the way Red Bull treated their engine partner, who had supplied them with the means to win four driver and four manufacturer titles, had more than a little to do with it.

Both RD and Marko have publicly stated that in order to win you cannot be just a customer. But waht do they know, eh?

Todt may well have raised the idea for the hybrids, but I don't recall him saying he would shut down the series if it didn't happen. It was Renault initially who refused to compromise and then Merc and the others followed suit. And now it's the manufacturers who tend to block any attempt to change the status quo and zealously guard their position in the sport.

Verstappen would disagree

https://f1i.com/news/291852-verstappen- ... gines.html

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I don't agree. I think F1 is worse in competitiveness because unless you're a manufacturer team you have next to no chance and there are only four of those so the odds shrink even further.

And judging by Brundle's article outlined above the teams are already putting the kybosh on the proposed changes and they are likely to be considerably watered down so the status quo remains. And so it will be indefinitely until the FIA/LM grow at least one spine between them

Which has nothing to do with the engines, the kibosh will be about the budget caps.

Brundle's article didn't mention budget caps and mentioned compromises, plural, so likely to be much more than just that. He talked about root and branch changes needed and I think that would be odd terminology to use if all you were talking about was budgets

The main issues are distribution of funds and budget caps and has nothing to do with the engines, who in the paddock do you see bringing up engines as being any kind of problem?

Those are the main issues in your opinion. I disagree and there are plenty of people who a simple Google search will return who have gone on record saying the current technology is far too complicated for its own good and who advocate a return to simpler, more cost-effective racing

Who has said this recently?

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: In a sporting contest you don't get rid of anyone on the grounds of them being too good, MotoGP would perhaps be that much better if they banned Marc Marquez?

I'm not actually saying get rid. I'm saying F1 has nothing to fear by them walking away. The product is so bad right now it is time to take risks.

Ferrari have massive fan support maybe 50% of F1, the product is so bad because Mercedes are winning if Ferrari were winning I would guess that maybe 90% of these posts wouldn't have been made?

Are you joking? Again, I refer you to the 2003 rule changes specifically designed to end Ferrari dominance.

That was after just 3 Championships of it.

Edited to say I bet competetive racing has more fans than Ferrari.

I could have said if Red Bull were winning, anybody that wasn't Mercedes.

My reference to Ferrari was you saying F1 has nothing to fear about Ferrari walking away with their 50% F1 fan base.

Surely you remember people moaning when Red Bull were winning every race? Pirelli designed tyres in 2013 specifically to stop them. Nobody is blindly prejudiced against Mercedes here.

If 50% of people who watch an F1 race solely because of Ferrari then F1 has far worse problems than even I thought. Luckily there's no way that's the case.

I think the poor racing and lack of competition drives away more fans than Ferrari quitting would.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:It was Jean Todt that initially wanted the green hybrid engines after the engine manufacturers initially wanted twin turbos and only then did Renault put their weight behind it, but keep putting the knife into the manufacturers, also the biggest disparity in respect to the pecking order of the teams is the size of their budgets.

Renault threatened to pull out and that contributed heavily to F1 adopting the hybrid engines and afterwards Mercedes also admitted they were considering the same. And any proposed changes these days tend to be shot down by the big teams so the pecking order remains the same. There is a disparity in finances which absolutely does contribute to the pecking order but the biggest disparity is in whether or not you have an engine manufacturer's backing and without that your chances of winning are almost non-existent

The manufacturers threatened to pull out because they didn't want to continue building what were basically spec engines, like I said the Hybrids were pushed forward by Todt that's what he wanted.

If the chances of a customer winning are almost non-existent then why did both Mercedes and Ferrari refuse to supply Red Bull with engines?

I've no doubt the way Red Bull treated their engine partner, who had supplied them with the means to win four driver and four manufacturer titles, had more than a little to do with it.

Both RD and Marko have publicly stated that in order to win you cannot be just a customer. But waht do they know, eh?

Todt may well have raised the idea for the hybrids, but I don't recall him saying he would shut down the series if it didn't happen. It was Renault initially who refused to compromise and then Merc and the others followed suit. And now it's the manufacturers who tend to block any attempt to change the status quo and zealously guard their position in the sport.

Verstappen would disagree

https://f1i.com/news/291852-verstappen- ... gines.html

So what?

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: In a sporting contest you don't get rid of anyone on the grounds of them being too good, MotoGP would perhaps be that much better if they banned Marc Marquez?

I'm not actually saying get rid. I'm saying F1 has nothing to fear by them walking away. The product is so bad right now it is time to take risks.

Can you elaborate on why you think the product is particularly bad right now? I've avoided participating in this thread up to now but I feel the need to jump in. I've followed F1 for a long time but I've noticed that in the 21st century, F1 fans and media have been in a perpetual state of dissatisfaction. That is the main thing that has changed. Not the racing and not the competitiveness; the perception of it all is what has changed. There is far more overtaking now than there was 10-15 years ago. We have had 2 years back to back with two closely matched teams at the front in 2017-18 (this year it looks like that won't be the case). The glorified past generations were often far less competitive than today with a much bigger field spread.

I truly don't think that anything short of Vin Diesel, Fast and Furious-style chases and explosions will be considered exciting enough to shut people up. People will always complain about F1 moving forward because we now live in a world of complainers. If Mercedes pulled out of the sport and Hamilton retired; it wouldn't reduce the amount of complaining at all.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:For me if people want to change F1 from it's core principles then that's not what I want, is F1 really so destitute, I don't see that apart from a few disgruntled fans?

I think there's a strong argument to say F1 has already deviated quite strongly from its core principles and many are advocating a return back from that

What principles would that be?

well you're the one who brought them up - why don't you tell me?

You specifically said F1 has deviated away from it's core principles how can I know what you're referring to?

In response to you saying they shouldn't move away from their core principles

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:Which has nothing to do with the engines, the kibosh will be about the budget caps.

Brundle's article didn't mention budget caps and mentioned compromises, plural, so likely to be much more than just that. He talked about root and branch changes needed and I think that would be odd terminology to use if all you were talking about was budgets

The main issues are distribution of funds and budget caps and has nothing to do with the engines, who in the paddock do you see bringing up engines as being any kind of problem?

Those are the main issues in your opinion. I disagree and there are plenty of people who a simple Google search will return who have gone on record saying the current technology is far too complicated for its own good and who advocate a return to simpler, more cost-effective racing

Who has said this recently?

You found a quote from Verstappen from over a year ago, so I', pretty sure you know how to use Google

sandman1347 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: In a sporting contest you don't get rid of anyone on the grounds of them being too good, MotoGP would perhaps be that much better if they banned Marc Marquez?

I'm not actually saying get rid. I'm saying F1 has nothing to fear by them walking away. The product is so bad right now it is time to take risks.

Can you elaborate on why you think the product is particularly bad right now? I've avoided participating in this thread up to now but I feel the need to jump in. I've followed F1 for a long time but I've noticed that in the 21st century, F1 fans and media have been in a perpetual state of dissatisfaction. That is the main thing that has changed. Not the racing and not the competitiveness; the perception of it all is what has changed. There is far more overtaking now than there was 10-15 years ago. We have had 2 years back to back with two closely matched teams at the front in 2017-18 (this year it looks like that won't be the case). The glorified past generations were often far less competitive than today with a much bigger field spread.

I truly don't think that anything short of Vin Diesel, Fast and Furious-style chases and explosions will be considered exciting enough to shut people up. People will always complain about F1 moving forward because we now live in a world of complainers. If Mercedes pulled out of the sport and Hamilton retired; it wouldn't reduce the amount of complaining at all.

Overtaking is not an issue for me. It's the predictability from season to season let alone race to race is what I don't like. We have never had a period of such stability at the front of the field. 10-15 years ago we had less overtaking but more excitement in other ways. Look at 10 years ago - 2009. We had no idea race to race who would have the fastest car and the field was so close if someone in the quickest car did a poor job in quali they would be out of the top 10. Compare that to now when I can tell you that in Australia 2020 at least the top 5 positions will almost certainly be filled with Mercedes, Ferrari's and Red Bulls. If Vettel does an awful job in quali he will line up 6th at worst. It's a massive change.

And the difference is from other years is that there's very little hope of that changing right now.

The other thing I would say is that F1 isn't visually exciting anymore. Most tracks are basically white lines painted on to car parks, car's can draft passed each other in a straight line but can't actually run close to each other, the cars don't look on edge during races etc. I could go on.