planetf1.com

http://planetf1.com/news/vettel-fastest ... hould-win/

I agree with him. F1 would be more popular and would be a proper 'sport' if the drivers had more influence over the results than the cars.

My point of view is that the car design should not be aimed at maximum miles per gallon, but aimed at making the best racing car to provide the tool for the best racing on the range of circuits they race on. I also think more emphasis should be put on modifying the circuits to improve the racing, rather than leaving some to be races to the first corner and trying to fabricate ways of passing via pit stops.

babararacucudada wrote:http://planetf1.com/news/vettel-fastest ... hould-win/

I agree with him. F1 would be more popular and would be a proper 'sport' if the drivers had more influence over the results than the cars.
My point of view is that the car design should not be aimed at maximum miles per gallon, but aimed at making the best racing car to provide the tool for the best racing on the range of circuits they race on. I also think more emphasis should be put on modifying the circuits to improve the racing, rather than leaving some to be races to the first corner and trying to fabricate ways of passing via pit stops.

The focus has always been on the cars more than the drivers, unless we have 2 competitive drivers in the same team (Senna / Prost, Mansell / Piquet, Rosberg / Hamilton etc).

Until F1 becomes a spec series, the car will remain the biggest factor in who wins or loses. With some exceptions, an average driver who is at home in a great car will almost always beat a great driver who is at home in an average car.

Unless you want a spec series the car will almost certainly always make more difference. The only time I can think of where that wasn't the case was the second half of 2009. I would say at that time cars and drivers mattered about equally. The drivers are probably about 1.2 seconds apart per lap from best to worst. To make the car matter less than the driver the difference from best to worst would have to be less than 1.2 seconds. Even then you put the best driver in a car that's a second a lap slower than the car the second best driver is in he will still have no chance.

For people who want to see a series with equal cars there are many racing series I could recommend.

I'm the exact opposite side, I've always seen Formula 1 as an engineering championship with the drivers no more than employees. Sure very specialised and highly paid, but their job is simply to get the most performance possible out of the machinery the rest of the team has sp not over a year developing to meet whatever the design challenge happens to be that season.

I agree with him but sadly the car will always be more important.

IIRC Fangio already said (in his own era) that the car was more important than the driver, so go figure...

I don't agree with him on the cars: as others have said that would make F1 a spec series which would be a completely different sport. However I agree with his point regarding the rules being excessively complicated

It is always about the car and we don't want a spec series
The point here is that the pendulum has swung more toward the car with the complicated technology and rules

If F1 is mainly about the car (and the manufacturers and even the FIA seem to be on board with that) then we will see how much interest there is in that from the public in the years to come.

There are many more choices for entertainment today than in the past.

babararacucudada wrote:If F1 is mainly about the car (and the manufacturers and even the FIA seem to be on board with that) then we will see how much interest there is in that from the public in the years to come.

There are many more choices for entertainment today than in the past.

And why does F1 need to appeal to the masses? It didn't have mass popularity in the past and it was great.

Amazing that vettel said little about this when he had the fastest car ??

mikeyg123 wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:If F1 is mainly about the car (and the manufacturers and even the FIA seem to be on board with that) then we will see how much interest there is in that from the public in the years to come.

There are many more choices for entertainment today than in the past.

And why does F1 need to appeal to the masses? It didn't have mass popularity in the past and it was great.

Ask him:



Source: autosport

nixxxon wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:If F1 is mainly about the car (and the manufacturers and even the FIA seem to be on board with that) then we will see how much interest there is in that from the public in the years to come.

There are many more choices for entertainment today than in the past.

And why does F1 need to appeal to the masses? It didn't have mass popularity in the past and it was great.

Ask him:



Source: autosport

That's what Bernie wants not what the sport needs. The sport could survive without being a major player.

mikeyg123 wrote:

nixxxon wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:If F1 is mainly about the car (and the manufacturers and even the FIA seem to be on board with that) then we will see how much interest there is in that from the public in the years to come.

There are many more choices for entertainment today than in the past.

And why does F1 need to appeal to the masses? It didn't have mass popularity in the past and it was great.

Ask him:



Source: autosport

That's what Bernie wants not what the sport needs. The sport could survive without being a major player.

Probably... but I dont think the manufacturers/teams and in general everything in the sport would agree.

The F1 circus approved Bernie's actions for F1 expansion to the masses, due to the revenue that so many people got in general, and the benefits they got from it. So in the end its because people (in F1) want to have a good salary and first of all to have a salary.

nixxxon wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

nixxxon wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:If F1 is mainly about the car (and the manufacturers and even the FIA seem to be on board with that) then we will see how much interest there is in that from the public in the years to come.

There are many more choices for entertainment today than in the past.

And why does F1 need to appeal to the masses? It didn't have mass popularity in the past and it was great.

Ask him:



Source: autosport

That's what Bernie wants not what the sport needs. The sport could survive without being a major player.

Probably... but I dont think the manufacturers/teams and in general everything in the sport would agree.

The F1 circus approved Bernie's actions for F1 expansion to the masses, due to the revenue that so many people got in general, and the benefits they got from it. So in the end its because people (in F1) want to have a good salary and first of all to have a salary.

That's an explanation as to why things will be done to insure F1 retains its mass popularity not why it has to or even why it would be a bad thing.

mikeyg123 wrote:That's an explanation as to why things will be done to insure F1 retains its mass popularity not why it has to or even why it would be a bad thing.

It depends of for who it would be a good/bad thing. Maybe for a not casual F1 fan like you it would not be a bad thing but for many F1 workers it would be terrble since they would either get their salary dramatically reduced, or even lose their job. And I'm pretty sure the F1 people care first about themselves and after that they care about the fans.

In today's world, the car is always going to be much more important than the driver. Why? Because of all the data and telemetry being collected about every millisecond of every lap.

Back in the old days, before every car had video and every component of the car was instrumented, when the driver pulled out of the pits whatever happened was between him, the road, and the car, and it was largely their own little secret. Nobody really knew whether he was good on the brakes, setting the car up, picking a fast racing line, finding the limits, or getting the power down early on exit. The only thing anyone knew was the lap time, which could only be compared to his teammate and drivers in other cars. If one guy was faster than his teammate, there was no way to know where the time was being lost or gained. If one guy was faster than another in a different car, there was no way to know whether it was the car or the driver that made the difference. Most importantly, there was little the driver could use other than his own talent to go faster.

Flash forward to the present era. All of the drivers get instant feedback either directly from their race engineer over the radio (even with the current restrictions during the race, this is still done during practice) or by way of data reviews back in the pits. Today's race engineers and aerodynamicists are much more involved in setting up the cars than the drivers because they literally know what will make the car faster (as opposed to what will make the driver happier). Plus, today's drivers get to practice in very sophisticated simulators with all that feedback to maximize their performances. If there are even a few hundredths of a second not being extracted from the car, the driver is told exactly where they are and what needs to be done to get them. This is not just true in F1, and drivers who cannot use the information they are provided will not (unless they have huge sponsors) make it to F1. The result is that the driver's natural talent is assisted and, dare I say augmented, by third party information so that he is able to identify weaknesses and improve upon them to maximize the potential of the car. With everyone now (theoretically) able to get the most out of the car, the biggest gains are coming from the car and not the driver, and the car is much more important for success.

It's been a long time since the fastest car (over the entire season) failed to win the championship, and we've had far too many years of one car simply dominating. Now the car flatters the driver or makes him look slow (instead of the other way round). People we thought were all time greats can be humbled by a new teammate. New young drivers can burst on the scene and be immediately fast in competitive equipment. People we wrote off as mediocre can suddenly jump into a fast car and seem like the next Jim Clark. Former world champions cannot win a race when the car is not up with the best.

babararacucudada wrote:If F1 is mainly about the car (and the manufacturers and even the FIA seem to be on board with that) then we will see how much interest there is in that from the public in the years to come.

There are many more choices for entertainment today than in the past.

That is the beauty of sport though – some years the teams will be so close that the small difference the driver makes up will be significant, with spectacular results. Other years a team will run away with it. Same with football or any other sport, just a huge part of the team are the engineers working away behind the scenes. It is the peaks and troughs that add to the entertainment. Take Rugby Union – look at the six nations this year – the first five fixtures were separated by 13 points. Then another year, one team will just run away with it.

Plus the top teams employ around 800 people - if you make it all about the drivers, which part of me would love too, then you may as well cut that to like 50? Maybe less.

Well it is called "Formula 1" for a reason, if it was about the drivers then it would be called "Spec 1"

specdecible wrote:Well it is called "Formula 1" for a reason, if it was about the drivers then it would be called "Spec 1"

Or "GP1" like Newey said.

mikeyg123 wrote:Unless you want a spec series the car will almost certainly always make more difference. The only time I can think of where that wasn't the case was the second half of 2009. I would say at that time cars and drivers mattered about equally. The drivers are probably about 1.2 seconds apart per lap from best to worst. To make the car matter less than the driver the difference from best to worst would have to be less than 1.2 seconds. Even then you put the best driver in a car that's a second a lap slower than the car the second best driver is in he will still have no chance.

For people who want to see a series with equal cars there are many racing series I could recommend.

Yeah just another thread bemoaning the Mercedes dominance and the hybrid engines.

Does Vettel himself think that he solely was making the difference when he won his 4 titles, driving for a team with an unsurpassed budget helps and never having a car worse then at least the second best car since 2009 also helps.

What chance do the drivers driving in teams with much inferior budgets to Ferrari have of beating Vettel, I would say no chance no matter what changes that Vettel suggests.

F1 has never been a fair level playing field and Vettel himself has very much reaped the benefit of it, does Vettel want all the advantages that his team have taken away so that drivers in disadvantaged teams have a chance of beating him, I would say a definite no.

babararacucudada wrote:If F1 is mainly about the car (and the manufacturers and even the FIA seem to be on board with that) then we will see how much interest there is in that from the public in the years to come.

There are many more choices for entertainment today than in the past.

F1 has always been about the car, some years more than other years, but always about the car.

mikeyg123 wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:If F1 is mainly about the car (and the manufacturers and even the FIA seem to be on board with that) then we will see how much interest there is in that from the public in the years to come.

There are many more choices for entertainment today than in the past.

And why does F1 need to appeal to the masses? It didn't have mass popularity in the past and it was great.

Because Formula One needs a staggering amount of cash to continue. Paying customers are what funds F1 and a declining TV base along with declining race attendance would be devastating to say the least.

specdecible wrote:Well it is called "Formula 1" for a reason, if it was about the drivers then it would be called "Spec 1"

Because spec series are never called "formula ...". Right
A closed formula (= spec series) is also a formula.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Unless you want a spec series the car will almost certainly always make more difference. The only time I can think of where that wasn't the case was the second half of 2009. I would say at that time cars and drivers mattered about equally. The drivers are probably about 1.2 seconds apart per lap from best to worst. To make the car matter less than the driver the difference from best to worst would have to be less than 1.2 seconds. Even then you put the best driver in a car that's a second a lap slower than the car the second best driver is in he will still have no chance.

For people who want to see a series with equal cars there are many racing series I could recommend.

Yeah just another thread bemoaning the Mercedes dominance and the hybrid engines.

Does Vettel himself think that he solely was making the difference when he won his 4 titles, driving for a team with an unsurpassed budget helps and never having a car worse then at least the second best car since 2009 also helps.

What chance do the drivers driving in teams with much inferior budgets to Ferrari have of beating Vettel, I would say no chance no matter what changes that Vettel suggests.

F1 has never been a fair level playing field and Vettel himself has very much reaped the benefit of it, does Vettel want all the advantages that his team have taken away so that drivers in disadvantaged teams have a chance of beating him, I would say a definite no.

Very much agree he should be happy Ferrari actually improved a lot when he arrived. He wasn't complaining when he was racking up the WDC's having the best car and a weaker teammate.
As unfair at it sounds F1 has always been more about car than driver. That's also what it should be, the competition between the different cars and engines. He is free to change sports if he likes.

I wonder how many times WDC he would be if his wish was somehow granted retroactively?

pokerman, amon, wolfticket: you guys are not being fair towards him. Vettel tends to speak his mind regardless of whether he's winning or not. When he was winning, he criticized the tyres as well, for example.

It's a bit gratuitous to turn this thread into one that criticizes him for speaking his mind instead of discussing the merits or shortcomings of the opinion itself, which is what it should really be about.

mds wrote:pokerman, amon, wolfticket: you guys are not being fair towards him. Vettel tends to speak his mind regardless of whether he's winning or not. When he was winning, he criticized the tyres as well, for example.

It's a bit gratuitous to turn this thread into one that criticizes him for speaking his mind instead of discussing the merits or shortcomings of the opinion itself, which is what it should really be about.

Agreed. Its frustrating to read the same sniping every time Vettel voices his opinion.

I don't understand him. Why should the fastest driver win? What's the use of having a championship season if you're simply looking for the fastest driver? The fact it is not a spec series, makes it more difficult. Even though there wasn't a constructors' championship during the first years of F1, it is all about the car.

I'm all for reducing the role of the teams in the race to hanging out pitboards showing the gaps, but even then it might be the best rather than the fastest driver who would win. Which is how I prefer it anyway.

Fiki wrote:I don't understand him. Why should the fastest driver win? What's the use of having a championship season if you're simply looking for the fastest driver? The fact it is not a spec series, makes it more difficult. Even though there wasn't a constructors' championship during the first years of F1, it is all about the car.

I'm all for reducing the role of the teams in the race to hanging out pitboards showing the gaps, but even then it might be the best rather than the fastest driver who would win. Which is how I prefer it anyway.

The difference is that, on this forum at least, when Hamilton says something like he did last year about wanting the other teams to be on par with his he's hailed as being 'a real racer' who doesn't want to just drive away in the fastest car. Whereas now when Vettel want's it to be more about the driver than the car he gets these sniping comments.

mds wrote:pokerman, amon, wolfticket: you guys are not being fair towards him. Vettel tends to speak his mind regardless of whether he's winning or not. When he was winning, he criticized the tyres as well, for example.

It's a bit gratuitous to turn this thread into one that criticizes him for speaking his mind instead of discussing the merits or shortcomings of the opinion itself, which is what it should really be about.

I wouldn't disagree that he tends to speak his mind. I just question whether his mind would ponder the same questions if he was driving the Mercedes rather than competing against it.

The opinion/news story is notable for the fact Vettel said it (as opposed to say, me). I don't think it's unreasonable (or gratuitous) to discuss any potential conflict of interest here, as well as the merits of the opinion/idea.

For what it's worth I like Vettel and rate him very highly. I would have similar misgivings about any driver that had great success driving the best car on the grid and now wasn't in that car any more making a similar comment.
The tyres were a much more specific area of complaint than his comments on the general nature of competition in F1 here.

I agree with him to some extent, he won his titles in a pretty good car.

F1 has always been mostly about the car, and quite correctly. If you consider how many are employed in the design and manufacturing of the cars, compared to the few F1 drivers (and their personal trainers), it makes sense that the car-team is more important.

As others have said above, F1 is primarily an engineering sport. Not nearly as easy to follow/understand and consequently not nearly as popular as simpler human contests such as tennis, athletics, soccer, etc. The passion of the thousands of team personnel is at least as high as that of the drivers'.

paulsf1fix wrote:I agree with him to some extent, he won his titles in a pretty good car.

Yep, it's a bit rich after four seasons in a car 1/2 to 1 second a lap faster while Hamilton was going bananas with frustration and Alonso had the demeanour of a bulldog chewing a wasp.

The obvious solution is to make all the cars identical, but how much fun would that be?

.

Chunky wrote:

paulsf1fix wrote:I agree with him to some extent, he won his titles in a pretty good car.

Yep, it's a bit rich after four seasons in a car 1/2 to 1 second a lap faster while Hamilton was going bananas with frustration and Alonso had the demeanour of a bulldog chewing a wasp.

The obvious solution is to make all the cars identical, but how much fun would that be?

.

It's interesting how a racing series where the driver matters the most is viewed as being least interesting/desirable.

Any theories on why this is?

vettel has got too much to say recently - he said recently merc dominating the sport is not good for the sport , and it would be much better if Ferrari were dominating (I added that last bit on)

vettel would do much better wondering who will be his 2017 teammate will be (max-plz).......he wouldn't have a lot to say then and his applecart would start to lean one way

HS Thompson wrote:

Chunky wrote:

paulsf1fix wrote:I agree with him to some extent, he won his titles in a pretty good car.

Yep, it's a bit rich after four seasons in a car 1/2 to 1 second a lap faster while Hamilton was going bananas with frustration and Alonso had the demeanour of a bulldog chewing a wasp.

The obvious solution is to make all the cars identical, but how much fun would that be?

.

It's interesting how a racing series where the driver matters the most is viewed as being least interesting/desirable.

Any theories on why this is?

There is much less uncertainty for one thing. In F1 you could go on forever discussing which drivers are better and why and never really know for sure. If the cars were all equal there would be a fascinating 6 race spell where we start to see the pecking order form. Then you would probably just have a fairly fixed order, obviously varying a little race to race, but the cream would rise to the top and win the majority of races. This would only change as new talent comes through and drivers pass their peak. People would know who is the best, and maybe you’d get a bit of variance from track characteristics/weather conditions, but I would suggest there would be much less intrigue. That all adds to the spectacle.

HS Thompson wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

babararacucudada wrote:If F1 is mainly about the car (and the manufacturers and even the FIA seem to be on board with that) then we will see how much interest there is in that from the public in the years to come.

There are many more choices for entertainment today than in the past.

And why does F1 need to appeal to the masses? It didn't have mass popularity in the past and it was great.

Because Formula One needs a staggering amount of cash to continue. Paying customers are what funds F1 and a declining TV base along with declining race attendance would be devastating to say the least.

I think it's more like Bernie and CVC that need the staggering amount of cash.

slide wrote:vettel has got too much to say recently - he said recently merc dominating the sport is not good for the sport , and it would be much better if Ferrari were dominating (I added that last bit on)

vettel would do much better wondering who will be his 2017 teammate will be (max-plz).......he wouldn't have a lot to say then and his applecart would start to lean one way

IMO, there’s nothing wrong with drivers speaking their mind and offering considered opinions---I’d rather that than submissive corporate clones afraid to speak up for fear of upsetting the applecart or garnering criticism. It’s just that this particular comment from Vettel is rather ill-conceived. As others have already pointed out, F1 has always been mainly about the car. Even Fangio suggested, in his day, it was 25% driver, 75% car. The margins may fluctuate but the basic premise is the same - to consistently win, a competitive car is the most important ingredient in the equation. So why Vettel would now think that this should somehow be different in modern F1 is rather perplexing. Also, I don’t appreciate, what i perceive to be, his implication that Mercedes' dominance is the primary, sole or original cause for fans turning away from the sport. He needs to remember fans were disappearing well before the current Mercedes tenure. FIA published numbers indicated there was a large global fall in viewing figures from 600 million in 2008 to 450 million in 2013. Sure, a good proportion of this can be attributed to the switch to pay TV in many areas, but the rot/decline had already started to set in Seb! That said, i do agree with his assertions that some of the rules have become over complicated and could do with simplifying.

mds wrote:pokerman, amon, wolfticket: you guys are not being fair towards him. Vettel tends to speak his mind regardless of whether he's winning or not. When he was winning, he criticized the tyres as well, for example.

It's a bit gratuitous to turn this thread into one that criticizes him for speaking his mind instead of discussing the merits or shortcomings of the opinion itself, which is what it should really be about.

He criticised the tyres for preventing him from winning races in what was the best car, remember the tyres got changed in 2013 then Vettel went on a winning streak and then no more criticism from him.

The changes that Vettel proposes will not enable drivers in inferior teams to win races because they will not make it a driver orientated formula, the teams with the most money will continue to win.