Jacques Villeneuve: Modern F1 is a fake show [split]

Kind of agree.

 

The Brundle comment of "give something back" is not entirely accurate. Are we to expect that former F1 drivers have to sit back and enjoy whatever rules and regulations F1 higher ups come up with?

 

Ex-drivers speaking out against the new rules like double points is in a way giving something positive back, as it shows the higher ups that it is not just a small section of hardcore fans that do not approve of artificial regulations like double points.

 

When you consider that most current drivers do not approve of the double points rule as well, guys like J,V are reinforcing a point that needs to be made. J.V is giving something positive back by voicing his concern that the fans and current drivers in F1 are getting a raw deal.

Same basic thing going on here as seen on this forum on occasion - instead of addressing the issues raised by Villeneuve, Brundle responds wih a personal attack.  Makes me think that Villeneuve is very much on target with his opinion.

The question is, who is pulling Brundle's strings? -  Get out there quickly Martin and dismiss JV's comments before more voices appear.  

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 16 February 2014 - 21:19.

Some claptrap on here

 

Disdain for current F1 is nothing at all to do with my guy not winning, I dont have a 'guy' and never have!  What a load of old rubbish

 

It is because the racing is dull, one car dominates, which we can all admire but lets face it it makes it dull as dishwater when  car is designed to be just as quick without the aids designed to improve overtaking as it it without them, so much so that they regularly fail and the car still runs and hides.

 

Ever wondered why thatc ar is slow on teh straight, ever wondered why pole is so vital for Vettel?  Coz the KERS system is only ballast and an element of it failing was desigend into the package, hence he HAD to be there or he would find it very tough to get through, hence the 2 second lead every first lap.

 

This is clever engineering, nothing more. Hence the booing, the comment and the reaction from bernie as he obviosuly saw a drop in viewing figures and a reason to do something about it.

 

There is no action on its own in F1 from teh FIA or Bernie, it is always reaction.

What a load of claptrap rubbish..

The viewing figures didn't drop beause of Vettel, they were because of things completely unrelated to anything on the track which you would know if you had checked the minimum of facts that was in all the articles concerning the TV figures..

Yet here you are parroting Bernie's lie and justifying a reason to do something about it, but the real funny part is saying Bernie or FIA are always reacting to things and never acting on their own agenda..

Get rid of the double points in the final race and also change the way DRS is used.

If DRS could only be used 2 or 3 times during a race in the DRS zone or a driver is limted to 90 seconds of DRS use during the race at any point on the circuit that he chooses, then I think I could accept it. It would bring in a tactical and thought element to DRS use, rather than just have the drivers mindlessly pressing a button every time they come to a specific part of the circuit. To me that would feel so much less artificial.

I don't know why 2010 is this 'ultimate race' when we've had better title deciders, even limiting it to races in Brazil.

2007, 2008 and 2012 were better.

But 2010, was still exciting. Vettel was only 3rd favorite going into the weekend, yet won the Championship.

 

 

The viewing figures didn't drop beause of Vettel, they were because of things completely unrelated to anything on the track which you would know if you had checked the minimum of facts that was in all the articles concerning the TV figures..

 

Whilst the advent of "pay TV" in several countries contributed to the ratings going down, in the UK ratings steadily dropped throughout the 2013 season due to a one sided WDC race. Now, that was not because of Vettel as a individual, more how clearly he was winning.

The increase in America was more down to a channel change, whilst the increase on average in the U.K was down to 2012 being a "summer of sport" (other sports like darts had major increases in 2013 over 2012 due to the Olympics and Football). The increase in the UK in 2013 was also partially down to the channel change to SKY in 2012.

SO whilst some factors contributed on track, most were outside issues, I agree.

2007, 2008 and 2012 were better.

 

But 2010, was still exciting. Vettel was only 3rd favorite going into the weekend, yet won the Championship.

Sorry I meant 2012, it was an okay race but not that exciting. It was a standard title decider. Not that much difference from 2010, and neither were close to something like the 2008 finish.

2010 was a great year both in terms of the championship battle and the individual races. Australia, China, Turkey and Belgium were brilliant races and I think Australia that year is one of my favourite races of the modern era.

Let me start again. 2010 had been a great year. Then we came to Abu Dhabi. We had three drivers, all in realistic contention for the championship, it was beautifully set up. Anticipation was through the roof. Then what did we see. A race on a soulless and uninspiring circuit, a race where the cars all followed each other in a high speed train, unable to pass on the track, due to poor circuit design and modern aerodynamics. What could have been a thrilling and intense battle never came to pass. It was a mssive let down and hugely anticlimactic. So there we have the big problem with modern Formula One. It was due to races likes this that DRS was needed and brought in, although the current DRS system is a clumsy and poorly thought out solution these problems.

By the way, I'm no Alonso fan I just felt robbed of what I had hoped would be a thrilling title showdown

Sorry I meant 2012, it was an okay race but not that exciting. It was a standard title decider. Not that much difference from 2010, and neither were close to something like the 2008 finish.

Fair play.

But with Vettel almost retiring on the first lap, and demoted to the back. The changing conditions meaning chaos and changes to the lead on several occasions, and the Championship lead changing hands several times in the same race, I felt it was superb.

Maybe not quite as climatic as the 2008 finale, but still worthy of  being a classic in my opinion.

Edited by sennafan24, 16 February 2014 - 18:26.

Sorry vocifer or whatever your name is, but all my friends stopped watching because the same bloke won every week.

From watching races and talking about it at work the day after, that stopped as they didn't watch anymore, that is a better nose into trends than any rubbish polls or stats, tlaking to people, especially in comparison with the years before after Pirelli came.

I agree that PPV might have been an issue, but there is profit linked to that, someone mentioned Frances figure went from 30 mill FTA to 10 mill PPV, thats a huge profit boost to only lose 2 thirds, imagine what happened here> You went from 40 odd million potential to a few million Sky viewers! then a huge drop again when they started paying, same will happen with motoGP this year on BT when people srtart having to pay after the freebie year.

Domination turns off MOST people, not all, most. Some people loved watching Sampras, Hendry, Doohan, Schumacher. Depends how much you get from it. Watchinf Ed Moses or Michael Johnson win for however many years they did was awesome, why?  Coz you could see what he was doing, you could see how much faster or accurate or commited they were. Same as the above guys, even though you knew they were likely to win.

You see none of this with F1 these days, just a car desigend to circumnavigate the rules that were desigend to make racing better, winning every week, and that bores most folk to tears, and rightly so.

Don't JV & MB work on TV about F1?  One speaks his mind, the others in Bernie's pocket. JV is not always correct but on this one he is.

Just ban Newey and Red Bull and F1 will improve straight away lol.

2010 was a great year both in terms of the championship battle and the individual races. Australia, China, Turkey and Belgium were brilliant races and I think Australia that year is one of my favourite races of the modern era.

 

Let me start again. 2010 had been a great year. Then we came to Abu Dhabi. We had three drivers, all in realistic contention for the championship, it was beautifully set up. Anticipation was through the roof. Then what did we see. A race on a soulless and uninspiring circuit, a race where the cars all followed each other in a high speed train, unable to pass on the track, due to poor circuit design and modern aerodynamics. What could have been a thrilling and intense battle never came to pass. It was a mssive let down and hugely anticlimactic. So there we have the big problem with modern Formula One. It was due to races likes this that DRS was needed and brought in, although the current DRS system is a clumsy and poorly thought out solution these problems.

 

By the way, I'm no Alonso fan I just felt robbed of what I had hoped would be a thrilling title showdown

So what you are saying is that despite having seen Abu Dhabi 2009 and listening to drivers complain from Friday thru Sunday morning during the 2010 race weekend about the impossibility of passing, you STILL went into that race anticipating a pass fest and hoping for a thrilling race, where the drivers in contention battled it out on track?  

What were your hopes built on?   What possible basis did you have for anticipating and expecting an exciting "showdown"?

After qualifying it was made exceedingly clear by the commentators that baring car trouble for Ferrari, Alonso would win the title in a boring fashion because of his start position and the fact that no one on track would likely be able to pass him - including his closest contender Webber.  And in fact, the outcome we got was more exciting than expected in that Vettel came back from 3rd to take the title when Alonso and Webber fell out of contention.

So perhaps you can understand why some take JV's statement with a grain of salt.  The FIA addressed the complaints of 'train' races with DRS - largely because of the hefty whining after the 2010 finale.  The unfair DRS advantage was very pronounced in 2011, but since then it has been adjusted and tempered to something less overtly advantageous and more of a assist akin to KERS - so fans and drivers are less vocal about it.  Double points are the new DRS in terms of complaining.  So nothing groundbreaking here from JV.  As for JV's 'driver lack of personality' rant - I still disagree with him and am tired of hearing it, but the point is it is that it is regurgitated here.  Nothing new.

I have to agree with MB this round - JV is saying this purely to stir up a little PR for himself.  I don't have a problem with that - stir it up bro - but I will call him on it and take his comments with a grain of salt.

Edited by bourbon, 16 February 2014 - 20:16.

For once, i disagree with Ross!

 

DRS might have helped to improve overtaking but for me its destroyed the "will he, won't he" tension that builds before an overtake. Now there's a sense of inevitability when a faster car approaches another you know its done and dusted and usually with little fuss. F1 wasn't perfect pre DRS but i'd rather have the original problem than the side affects created by the attempted medication. 

 

I appreciate its just personal opinion but when DRS doesn't work whats next? How far do you take it, if the guy infront stays ahead for x number of laps do the FIA reduce his power via the ECU or something. That might sound ridiculous but its the way F1 is slowly going. Hell, they'll even hand out double point for the final races ne..... ah.

 

I still love F1 and i'll put up with the increasing number of problems its has because the pros still out way the cons for me, at least for now. What i'm trying to say is JV has a point and Martin Brundle's tweet had a touch of an ostrich with its head in the sand about it, ignoring the fact the product he promotes has a fair few imperfections about it.

The no-blocking rule was made even more strict after Schumacher held Hamilton at bay for to many laps at Monza. That wasn't in the grand DRS design. Next stop: indicator lights (we have brake lights already if I understand correctly).

So what you are saying is that despite having seen Abu Dhabi 2009 and listening to drivers complain from Friday thru Sunday morning during the 2010 race weekend about the impossibility of passing, you STILL went into that race anticipating a pass fest and hoping for a thrilling race, where the drivers in contention battled it out on track?  

 

What were your hopes built on?   What possible basis did you have for anticipating and expecting an exciting "showdown"?

 

After qualifying it was made exceedingly clear by the commentators that baring car trouble for Ferrari, Alonso would win the title in a boring fashion because of his start position and the fact that no one on track would likely be able to pass him - including his closest contender Webber.  And in fact, the outcome we got was more exciting than expected in that Vettel came back from 3rd to take the title when Alonso and Webber fell out of contention.

 

So perhaps you can understand why some take JV's statement with a grain of salt.  The FIA addressed the complaints of 'train' races with DRS - largely because of the hefty whining after the 2010 finale.  The unfair DRS advantage was very pronounced in 2011, but since then it has been adjusted and tempered to something less overtly advantageous and more of a assist akin to KERS - so fans and drivers are less vocal about it.  Double points are the new DRS in terms of complaining.  So nothing groundbreaking here from JV.  As for JV's 'driver lack of personality' rant - I still disagree with him and am tired of hearing it, but the point is it is that it is regurgitated here.  Nothing new.

 

I have to agree with MB this round - JV is saying this purely to stir up a little PR for himself.  I don't have a problem with that - stir it up bro - but I will call him on it and take his comments with a grain of salt.

MB is saying everything that benefits his job. DRS was just a knee-jerk reaction, copied from the McLaren idea. And of course people get less vocal, they leave the sport by the millions. And I get tired of mentioning Pirelli, DRS, double points, etc every single post. Some people can think of that as 'accepting' it, but it isn't.

The FIA addressed the complaints of 'train' races with DRS - largely because of the hefty whining after the 2010 finale.

The DRS was mostly a way for the FIA to get more control over the F-duct. The introduction of controlled DRS was announced in June 2010, months before the Abu Dhabi finale.

Edited by Nonesuch, 16 February 2014 - 20:56.

Sorry vocifer or whatever your name is, but all my friends stopped watching because the same bloke won every week.

 

From watching races and talking about it at work the day after, that stopped as they didn't watch anymore, that is a better nose into trends than any rubbish polls or stats, tlaking to people, especially in comparison with the years before after Pirelli came.

 

I agree that PPV might have been an issue, but there is profit linked to that, someone mentioned Frances figure went from 30 mill FTA to 10 mill PPV, thats a huge profit boost to only lose 2 thirds, imagine what happened here> You went from 40 odd million potential to a few million Sky viewers! then a huge drop again when they started paying, same will happen with motoGP this year on BT when people srtart having to pay after the freebie year.

 

Domination turns off MOST people, not all, most. Some people loved watching Sampras, Hendry, Doohan, Schumacher. Depends how much you get from it. Watchinf Ed Moses or Michael Johnson win for however many years they did was awesome, why?  Coz you could see what he was doing, you could see how much faster or accurate or commited they were. Same as the above guys, even though you knew they were likely to win.

 

You see none of this with F1 these days, just a car desigend to circumnavigate the rules that were desigend to make racing better, winning every week, and that bores most folk to tears, and rightly so.

Sorry sunder12 or whatever your name is, but using your friends TV viewing habits to prove your point about global TV audience downward trends on a forum like Autosport is frankly ludicrous especially when the real facts are easy to ascertain.

The point of this thread is JV's warning that F1 is becoming gimmicky in order to drive up the ratings, and as the push for this provably does not come from audiences dropping out because of Vettel's domination, it is because of something else. I suggest that the mere volume of fans constantly whining on the internet about Vettel and Red Bull's domination has a large part to do with this impression - or at least the justification for the gimmicks - , so your posts here are ironic to say the least.

Even if the constant whine noise is a factor, I still believe that since money talks loudest the real reason is simply that the big push is now for the American market which is why it's no coincidence drivers suddenly get fixed numbers and certain races worth more as that is how it's done in Nascar. This follows the push to get much more overtaking happening and an increase in safety cars usage. Add that to the talk last year of (the now major player) Mercedes pulling out if continued unsuccessful and you see the real factors for the major decisions being made by Bernie and FIA. Remember test-gate last year for example? This kind of steering by FIA was completely unheard of for anyone else but Ferrari in the old days. Wondered why F1 suddenly is an engine formula now etc? You get the picture.

Don't JV & MB work on TV about F1?  One speaks his mind, the others in Bernie's pocket. JV is not always correct but on this one he is.

 

Just ban Newey and Red Bull and F1 will improve straight away lol.

Newey bans himself with extreme designs every so often. He wasn't a factor from 2002 - 08.

The DRS was mostly a way for the FIA to get more control over the F-duct. The introduction of controlled DRS was announced in June 2010, months before the Abu Dhabi finale.

I was wrong about that.  I didn't recall they announced it in july.  

I just remembered the assurances to those upset by the 2010 finale that DRS would solve their woes in the years to come and the rage that ensued. 

Edited by bourbon, 17 February 2014 - 06:14.

The rev limiter caused the 2010 finale. But that wasn't on the FIA agenda.

Got absolutely no interest in most things that Brundle has to say these days. The coverage on the BBC, whilst lacking many things perhaps, doesn't miss him and his ego / tedious grid walks one bit.

JV is right on this one.

The rev limiter caused the 2010 finale. But that wasn't on the FIA agenda.

How so? Teams were still allowed to choose the gearing how they wanted.

JV kinda skips over the important point: In modern F1 you can almost not overtake anymore without any form of assitance. The grip levels by aerodynamics have been going up so much that you just lose too much grip and balance to be really close behind the guy in front of you that slipstreaming is close to impossible. From the early nineties to now you could each year slowly see it getting harder and in the last 10 years become virtually non-existent.. the order you started was the order you finished and that was it. 

The various weights resulting from refueling sometimes helped to safe the day most of the times it made the race more into a long qualifying run. Lack of reliability helped sometimes as it atleast gave some suprises.

DRS is hated because it makes the overtaking easier but does not really solve the problem.

The solution IMHO:
I think the best solution could be a standarized front wing/nose with a reversed DRS system. Instead of reducing drag on the straight line it should increase grip in the corner if you are closely behind a other car. Allowing you to stay with the car in front and not being forced to back off as now is the case. Drivers should be able to set the amount themselves how much increase front grip they want at a given time in order to setup the overtake.

The advantage:
- It does not make the overtake look cheap, it comes down to driver skill of not using too much as it would result into oversteer and loss of balance.
- Using it too early would result in loss of speed making it more a skill to use properly then a easy stick to guy in front and overtake button.
- This means you can use the system all around the track no silly 1 second rule, if you think it is beneficial, feel free to use it, but if you are too far away then you will most likely lose more time then you would gain.
- It tackles the problem close to the core.
- The FIA could make a default nose part that all reams must use removing ugly noses
- Wings are a huge factor in the aerodynamic cost of a F1 car, it would seriously reduce cost if all teams had same wings available.
- You could take the alternative line and brake later because of higher grip at nose making outbraking a option again also. Even following a alternative line seems more likely to me

The disadvantage:
- not found one yet, except yes it is artificial but less suspicious then DRS.

The solution IMHO:
I think the best solution could be a standarized front wing/nose with a reversed DRS system. Instead of reducing drag on the straight line it should increase grip in the corner if you are closely behind a other car. Allowing you to stay with the car in front and not being forced to back off as now is the case. Drivers should be able to set the amount themselves how much increase front grip they want at a given time in order to setup the overtake.

The advantage:
- It does not make the overtake look cheap, it comes down to driver skill of not using too much as it would result into oversteer and loss of balance.
- Using it too early would result in loss of speed making it more a skill to use properly then a easy stick to guy in front and overtake button.
- This means you can use the system all around the track no silly 1 second rule, if you think it is beneficial, feel free to use it, but if you are too far away then you will most likely lose more time then you would gain.
- It tackles the problem close to the core.
- The FIA could make a default nose part that all reams must use removing ugly noses
- Wings are a huge factor in the aerodynamic cost of a F1 car, it would seriously reduce cost if all teams had same wings available.
- You could take the alternative line and brake later because of higher grip at nose making outbraking a option again also. Even following a alternative line seems more likely to me

The disadvantage:
- not found one yet, except yes it is artificial but less suspicious then DRS.

Adjustable front wings were already used in 2009 and 2010,they made little,if any difference for overtaking and were abandoned.

I would propose a different alternative to how DRS should work. It would phyiscally work the same as it does now, but it would be activated at the driver's discretion only if he was within 1s of the car in front and directly behind. When he pulls out from the slipsteam it would close automatically. One way of sensing this would be a roundabout way by using GPS. Each car would have a zone directly behind it corresponding to the slipsteam zone, and DRS would only open there. It may be possible with some sort of turbulence sensor on the front of the car, but I suspect it would be too unreliable or too easily fooled.

My reasoning is that what we need DRS for is to make up for the lack of ability to follow another car closely, but what we don't like is when the attacker has DRS activated and it just drives past and away from the defender with its DRS still open, effectively reversing the situation. With my idea, if you had a particularly long straight, the defender could then tuck in behind the attacker once the move is done and has a chance of reversing the move. What I'd hope is that in the typical situation, the attacker can use it to get close, but then you'd have a more natural fight for position into the next corner.

Well I think they where on a better path with that, as it is more a drivers skill game. But maybe other influences where not present enough yet.

Just because something does not work yet at that times does not mean the idea is bad, it maybe too early as things have not evolved to a point where it would be beneficial and maybe they where too subtle about it. 2009 was overshadowed by the whole diffuser stuff going on making cornering speed so strong that the flaps where relativly useless compared to thediffuser and also cars would have to deal with more air in the corner from the car infront then normally.

They where IMHO the right idea at the wrong moment.
It is something that happens too often in the world history that great idea's get tested and called a failure because of other reasons then their own. Often leading to bankrupcy of business only to have the idea be picked up and implemented by a new company at the right time.

I like him alot and usually agree but disagree with Brundle on this one.  Positivity for the sake of positivity is lame..

Was listening to the MWM podcast discussing the Nascar point changes - and the reasons for it are the same in F1. The series top brass have no confidence in the 'product'. So introduce gimmicks or stupid points systems. Too many in F1 are stuck in a 'bubble' and can't see what is happening.

Sadly, other series tend to follow everything F1 does - and I expect double points in other FiA series soon...... As well as other 'equalisation' regs/ rules.... All to spice up 'The Show'.

The bit in bold is the key for me, and pretty much flips Brundle's statement on its head. Far from slagging off the sport, statements like Villeneuve's are actually saying that the core essence of the sport, a bunch of talented drivers circling around in a bunch of superbly engineered cars in a contest to reach the finishing line before everyone else - is actually fine the way it is (was?).

By contrast, IMO it's the rulemakers justifying DRS with talk of a couple of less than thrilling 2010 Middle Eastern races, tyre chief-cum-self appointed sport mouthpiece talking about "boring one stop races", commentators pundits and others with their brown-tinted glasses spouting revisionism about the oh-so-painful-to-watch 90s and 00s, that are doing the sport a disservice, essentially implying that the core of the sport is not good enough, when surely for any fan of the sport it is, otherwise we wouldnt have become fans in the first place.

Edited by FerrariV12, 17 February 2014 - 15:25.

Was listening to the MWM podcast discussing the Nascar point changes - and the reasons for it are the same in F1. The series top brass have no confidence in the 'product'. So introduce gimmicks or stupid points systems. Too many in F1 are stuck in a 'bubble' and can't see what is happening.

Sadly, other series tend to follow everything F1 does - and I expect double points in other FiA series soon...... As well as other 'equalisation' regs/ rules.... All to spice up 'The Show'.

That's a very good point.  I used to think this was a good thing, but lately it's been comical..

JV kinda skips over the important point: In modern F1 you can almost not overtake anymore without any form of assitance. The grip levels by aerodynamics have been going up so much that you just lose too much grip and balance to be really close behind the guy in front of you that slipstreaming is close to impossible. From the early nineties to now you could each year slowly see it getting harder and in the last 10 years become virtually non-existent.. the order you started was the order you finished and that was it. 

The various weights resulting from refueling sometimes helped to safe the day most of the times it made the race more into a long qualifying run. Lack of reliability helped sometimes as it atleast gave some suprises.

DRS is hated because it makes the overtaking easier but does not really solve the problem.

The solution IMHO:
I think the best solution could be a standarized front wing/nose with a reversed DRS system. Instead of reducing drag on the straight line it should increase grip in the corner if you are closely behind a other car. Allowing you to stay with the car in front and not being forced to back off as now is the case. Drivers should be able to set the amount themselves how much increase front grip they want at a given time in order to setup the overtake.

The advantage:
- It does not make the overtake look cheap, it comes down to driver skill of not using too much as it would result into oversteer and loss of balance.
- Using it too early would result in loss of speed making it more a skill to use properly then a easy stick to guy in front and overtake button.
- This means you can use the system all around the track no silly 1 second rule, if you think it is beneficial, feel free to use it, but if you are too far away then you will most likely lose more time then you would gain.
- It tackles the problem close to the core.
- The FIA could make a default nose part that all reams must use removing ugly noses
- Wings are a huge factor in the aerodynamic cost of a F1 car, it would seriously reduce cost if all teams had same wings available.
- You could take the alternative line and brake later because of higher grip at nose making outbraking a option again also. Even following a alternative line seems more likely to me

The disadvantage:
- not found one yet, except yes it is artificial but less suspicious then DRS.

JV wanted (among other things) to get rid of mirrors to prevent blocking

So what you are saying is that despite having seen Abu Dhabi 2009 and listening to drivers complain from Friday thru Sunday morning during the 2010 race weekend about the impossibility of passing, you STILL went into that race anticipating a pass fest and hoping for a thrilling race, where the drivers in contention battled it out on track?  

 

What were your hopes built on?   What possible basis did you have for anticipating and expecting an exciting "showdown"?

 

After qualifying it was made exceedingly clear by the commentators that baring car trouble for Ferrari, Alonso would win the title in a boring fashion because of his start position and the fact that no one on track would likely be able to pass him - including his closest contender Webber.  And in fact, the outcome we got was more exciting than expected in that Vettel came back from 3rd to take the title when Alonso and Webber fell out of contention.

 

Maybe I was being a little naive to expect a motor race where cars were actually able to pass each other on the track

It would have been a fantastic and fitting finale to a great season, if Alonso and Webber were able to charge back up through the pack during the race and give us drama and tension until the final stages of the race. However once Vettel had got in front and Alonso and Webber had dropped into the midfield due to strategic errors, it soon became frustratingly obvious what was going happen. I hate to sound smug and like I know it all, but I almost knew less than half way through that race that the championship fight was over. Alonso and Webber were stuck in a 'train' and any chance of seeing a thrilling and 'down to the wire' finale had been well and truly trumped by an awful circuit and modern aerodynamics

Hence why I believe that DRS has a place in modern, but only if the way it is used is changed (See my comments from earlier)

As for JV, I don't often agree with him, but on this occasion I do. It's pleasant to see drivers and ex drivers speak out against crazy rules like double points and I wish more drivers would do it. Credit is also due to Vettel for speaking out against it.

I've got a question, and it is NOT a rhetorical one: in the past years, has Villeneuve jr. praised anything or anyone in F1?

If I could google it, I would. But what search terms do you type in?

erm "Jacques Villeneuve not being an idiot caught on video"?

Domination has always been a part of F1.. but I feel fans were more accepting of in the past because (even during some of MS-Ferrari era) because every driver out there was maxing out each lap to try and close the gap.  Now, once a driver opens up a lead.. you HAVE ZERO chance since you can't push due to weak tires. 

The drivers of bygone eras were always nursing the cars, fuel, and tires. Full attack is a recent phenomenon.

People accepted blowouts because the cars were special. Even in the DFV era, F1 had fewer rounds so fans had less opportunity to see them. The music stopped with the 2.4L V8s, especially after they were equalized, but the noise was still present so people bought in.

Just ask NASCAR, if each individual car is not special, people expect a demolition derby at every round.

I've got a question, and it is NOT a rhetorical one: in the past years, has Villeneuve jr. praised anything or anyone in F1?

 

If I could google it, I would. But what search terms do you type in?

Depends. Can we also find any evidence of Brundle praising anything or anyone in F1 that isn't just towing the company line?

JV wanted (among other things) to get rid of mirrors to prevent blocking

Really? Because that would be colossally stupid.  

Really? Because that would be colossally stupid.  

Yes.

"I'm serious," the BAR driver told Autosport. "If you don't have mirrors, you cannot block. In a race situation, it would be 10 times safer without mirrors. You just mind your own business, like the motorbike guys."

http://www.smh.com.a...l?from=storyrhs

But then JV is colossally stupid.

Yes.

 

"I'm serious," the BAR driver told Autosport. "If you don't have mirrors, you cannot block. In a race situation, it would be 10 times safer without mirrors. You just mind your own business, like the motorbike guys."

 

http://www.smh.com.a...l?from=storyrhs

 

But then JV is colossally stupid.

That would be mind your own business and drive straight into the car alongside, JV. Seeing what is behind you is rather important in stopping an accident from occurring.

2008 looking cars with 2005 Engines. 

Who need publicity - Formula 1 world champion, Indycar champion and Indy 500 winner or a driver, who never even had pole position in F1? Villeneuve is right about modern F1.

Edited by Bimmer, 18 February 2014 - 06:46.

That would be mind your own business and drive straight into the car alongside, JV. Seeing what is behind you is rather important in stopping an accident from occurring.

ow can you drive straight into a car that is along side you? :S  Anyway, I bet you are more qualified to judge that than the Indycar, Indy 500 & F1 champion.

Yes.

 

"I'm serious," the BAR driver told Autosport. "If you don't have mirrors, you cannot block. In a race situation, it would be 10 times safer without mirrors. You just mind your own business, like the motorbike guys."

 

http://www.smh.com.a...l?from=storyrhs

 

But then JV is colossally stupid.

Wasn't that the era they had tiny mirrors? Or mirrors on vibrating sticks on the sidepod? In context, when you see nothing through them, why have them at all?

Yes.

 

"I'm serious," the BAR driver told Autosport. "If you don't have mirrors, you cannot block. In a race situation, it would be 10 times safer without mirrors. You just mind your own business, like the motorbike guys."

 

http://www.smh.com.a...l?from=storyrhs

 

But then JV is colossally stupid.

I think he forgot that motorcyclists can actually look over their shoulders at what's behind them.

Who need publicity - Formula 1 world champion, Indycar champion and Indy 500 winner or a driver, who never even had pole position in F1? Villeneuve is right about modern F1.

Never quite been able to understand what exactly this argument is supposed to prove. That because Villeneuve spent a couple of years in the fastest car he's more qualified to talk about F1 or it makes his opinions more valid?

For more accuracy, it's a Formula 1 World Champion, Indycar Champion and Indy 500 winner against a World Sportscar Champion and Le Mans winner who were both entered in 165 Grands Prix.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 18 February 2014 - 08:35.

2007, 2008 and 2012 were better.

 

But 2010, was still exciting. Vettel was only 3rd favorite going into the weekend, yet won the Championship.

For me, its not the title race itself that makes a season a good one, its the quality of the races themselves. I would take a season with 6-8 absolutely corking races over a procession that just happens to be mathematically close. 

Wasn't that the era they had tiny mirrors? Or mirrors on vibrating sticks on the sidepod? In context, when you see nothing through them, why have them at all?

Well he obviously thought they were beneficial in blocking drivers, so he must have been able to see those, although you're right in that they were spindly wobbly things.

For me, its not the title race itself that makes a season a good one, its the quality of the races themselves. I would take a season with 6-8 absolutely corking races over a procession that just happens to be mathematically close. 

I would ideally like both, but with the nature of the sport that is not always possible.

I get what you mean though, the 2005 season was fairly close, but the actually racing did not get very good reviews from fans.

A standarized wing might be against what you see spirit of the F1 rules, but so are these noses. But with the same argument: standarized tires OMG that is SO against the spirit of the rules.. It is just your opinion, and I do not agree it. I am only talking about the wing section to be standarized and that part is already seriously limited by rules and 99 out of a 100 would not recognize the car a wing is from if you remove the nosecone and colors.

Next up is your concern should the system fail... Well if the system would fail midcorner there would be a loss of downforce which would cause a driver to slide out. but then again how often has this happened in 2009/2010? It is relativly easy to make the system reliable and because it is not a complete loss of downforce as losing a complete wing would be.

It also shows your lack of understanding of how a F1 drive his corner and when it needs his front wing downforce. By the time the system could really fail the cars are accelerating, loss of downforce if the system would fail would result in the car sliding more to outside of corner, since these are not sunday drivers but amongst the best in the world the simple response will be release throttle, the slipstream will be gone soon enough or the speed reduced enough that it can keep the corner. Only a few corners in the sport could this pose a problem. But even then the crash would not be super serious as it would slide sideways damagingthe wheels on a side instead of hitting the wall with the nose full on. So a epic fail from your side on this subject.

For me, its not the title race itself that makes a season a good one, its the quality of the races themselves. I would take a season with 6-8 absolutely corking races over a procession that just happens to be mathematically close. 

Not necessarily:

I guess I am not exaggerating, if I say that 2011 (6-8 absolutely corking races: China, Nürburg, Montreal, Silverstone, Hungary, Suzuka) was still a season a looot of people didn't quite like. And that they prefer seasons like 2012 over 2011, though they were probably not 6 or 8 absolutely corking races...

 

Never quite been able to understand what exactly this argument is supposed to prove. That because Villeneuve spent a couple of years in the fastest car he's more qualified to talk about F1 or it makes his opinions more valid?

 

For more accuracy, it's a Formula 1 World Champion, Indycar Champion and Indy 500 winner against a World Sportscar Champion and Le Mans winner who were both entered in 165 Grands Prix.

My argument is related to Brundle's tweet:

"Angers me when former F1 drivers stick a boot into F1 for publicity. They had privileged chances, success,cash. Give something positive back;" Martin Brundle (@MBrundleF1) https://twitter.com/...735805010296832

Villeneuve doesn't need publicity, he had much much more succcessful career than Martin Brundle. It looks more like Martin Brundle is looking for publicity with his tweet related to Jacques Villeneuve.

Edited by Bimmer, 18 February 2014 - 11:39.

My argument is related to Brundle's tweet:

 

"Angers me when former F1 drivers stick a boot into F1 for publicity. They had privileged chances, success,cash. Give something positive back;" Martin Brundle (@MBrundleF1) https://twitter.com/...735805010296832

 

Villeneuve doesn't need publicity, he had much much more succcessful career than Martin Brundle. It looks more like Martin Brundle is looking for publicity with his tweet related to Jacques Villeneuve.

Does Brundle need publicity? He's on TV every other week.

Personally I prefer to look at an argument's validity rather than a potential motive.