Another FIA cock up!

I have just looked at Max's latest idea, the split rear wing, which he believes will improve F1. Ugly is one one word, I can think of several others. It staggers me that the powers that be don't seem to be able to see what Bazil Fawlty would describe as "the bleedin obvious". A car can't out brake another if they HAVE to brake at the same point, that would be carbon brakes, not aerodynamics. I concede that you have to be close enough, and aero' conditions can alter that, but splitting the rear wing will NOT solve F1's ills. Racing was once closer, simply because the majority had to have a DFV, so you all had the same power, but there are ways, and I do not believe the FIA are looking, the knee has jerked (or has the jerk, jerked?) again.

I spoke at length once with Max along with Herbie Blash, while waiting to fly out from Biggin, and he said "if it's so easy" what would you do?" So I told him, and he walked off without saying a word!! Herbie said, "he doesn't like being made to look daft, but you did!" I believe the solutions are relatively easy, what isn't so easy is making sure the teams comply (I never said cheat!!).

So? What would you do?

Originally posted by f1steveuk
So? What would you do?

Either: Get rid of carbon brakes and have standard issue very low downforce aerofoils, so they still have somewhere to paint the sponsors' names

Or: Specify front engines of 2.5 litres, as many cylinders as you want, and rim widths of no more than 6"

I think the idea behind this is that with current aerodynamic packages drivers have to keep about 0.4-0.6 secs behind the guy in front through corners not to have their front wing severely affected by 'dirty air'. Otherwise they loose front end grip. The intention of this is to allow cars to drive closer to those in front giving them an opportunity to more effectively take advantage of slip-streaming and give them a 'jump-start' coming onto the straight compared to current cars...

BTW, there are no more or less abominable wings- they are all abominable!

f1steveuk:

Oswald and Diana's first born has never impressed me with his common sense, particularly in the two encounters I had with him. Despite his political and legal pedigree he has never shown the ability to drive a compromise. In fact, I don't know if there is anyone on this planet who can now pull one off now that this ban of Cobras have even turned on Bernie. BTW, the whole Indy GP debacle was about Bernie, and putting Bernie in his new place.

Right now it is all about the manufacturers being able to sell gizmos to justify their outrageous prices and to off-set their high labor/manufacturing costs.

I rather watch GP2, now that is racing!

h4887

Your first point has a lot of merit.

Wolf

Why are GP2 cars able to race so close and F1 not? It's all politics...

David, I'd venture a guess that they have, because of lower costs, less 'tuned' aerodynamics; and more 'tuned' something is it's more affected by circumstances other than ideal/designed for... Mind You, I'm not claiming that- I've heard someone form F1 claim what I said in my previous post, and now am trying to come up with reasons why it should be so.;)

O.T. Prompted by the idea of Cyclekarts (I'm currently looking into building one for my God-son: a Panhard 'Razorblade'), I was trying to take it one step further and I tried to come up with sensible regulations for a racing series with Cyclecars. Not that it will ever come to pass, but I could post my thoughts on the subject if someone cares to take a look. I think what I've come up with might theoretically provide some good, old-fashioned racing...

(Interested by your Cyclekarts ideas, Wolf)

What would I do?

Rip up the rule book entirely. Every single one in top line motor racing. And rewrite them.

Formula 1: this is the pinnacle of engineering and driving excellence. You have to prove you're the best in the world at what you do. To this end everyone is equal and has to use equal resource. Best at using this = world champs.

All sponsorship monies are paid to the FIA. The FIA then doles it out in equal measure to the teams. Let's see how they do on equal budgets.

But within that straightjacket you can do what you bloody well want, so long as it's safe to other cars. Fared in bodywork? 8 litre turbos with exiguous chassis? 16 wheeled steering? Whatever you feel like. Beauty is if it does not work you're screwed for a season, but can restart the next. And it won't cost megabucks - cos you can only spend what everyone else is.

Sports cars: this is where technology comes in useful for road cars. So we have 2 categories.

1. 2 seaters with anything going. No restrictions barring one. Spend what you like. Go for it. Mega tech &c &c. Much more a team effort even than F1, the drivers are less important.

The one restriction is that the car must be road legal. We'll have to pick a country. Given that they basically founded motor racing and the best sports car race is there, I suggest France. If the cars can be driven from the scrutes to the track au Mans without the Clouseaux having a hissy fit, they can race.

2. 2 seaters that people can buy. Produce at least 50 of them. No other restrictions at all (maybe they need to be road legal as well). So if a couple of teams go berserk with cat 1, we can have a decent series for cat 2.

Touring cars: this is where we see the racing applications of the technology in road cars. Must be mass produced. No homologation specials. At least 10,000 around the world. Maybe price caps for subclasses a la Lanfranchi and Moskvitch. If the FIA cannot buy one from a main dealer after looking for a fortnight, it's banned.

Obviously they will all need appropriate rollcagery but the above may make a bit more philosophical sense than the mechanical straightjackets in which the formulae find themselves.

With A1 some thought was given to the aero package, and the rear wing was designed to allow close running (I believe it is the large shaped ide plates.

What ruins F1 is the use of defusers. once the venturi side pods went, Adrian Newey discovered that, in his words, "with a well designed defuser one can generate the same downforce and transmit it to the correct area of the car's under surface" , along with multi plane aerofoils, and the associated barge boards etc. Max doesn't like to listen (unless it was Bernie butthat seems to be changing), and was for ever saying "I know, I raced you know", yet didn't know it was the air UNDER the wing which made it work. Aero packages are fine, just simplify them. Single element front wings, max of three adjustments, rear foil of two elements, max adjustment five. flat bottoms, on a single plane from front to rear, and that's just to start!!

Originally posted by Antoine Pilette
(Interested by your Cyclekarts ideas, Wolf)

Hi Antoine! Just to stress the difference between Cyclecars and Cyclekarts- cyclekarts are pretty much regulated as they are- http://www.stevproj..../CycleKart.html . I'm thinking of making one looking like this: http://vsrnonline.co...C_V5N3_p137.jpg .

As for my proposal for Cyclecar series, I've uploadet it so that I don't lead the discussion here too much from topic: http://members.atlas...m/wolf/ccgp.htm . Some of the rules have alternative idea in brackets...

(Thank you:) )

If there was no downforce it wouldn't matter how powerful your brakes were you would have to have vastly greater braking distance than now otherwise the tyres would simply lose grip much earlier and lock up.
Wings have been an unmitigated disaster in racing cars for spectacle.

I have always said that all aerodynamics must go.

Give them back the big tires and mechanical grip and lets see what happens.

F1 will not look as they are now, but the fun will be back !!!

Originally posted by Keir
I have always said that all aerodynamics must go.

Give them back the big tires and mechanical grip and lets see what happens.

F1 will not look as they are now, but the fun will be back !!!

A sketch of mine from 5 years ago...twin rear wings like the Moseley proposal, but suspension mounted. The banning of suspension mounted wings in the late 60s was a knee jerk thing...the wings then were just too big...but the suspension is the place they SHOULD be mounted. There they can be effective (even two small ones?) without rock hard suspension.



And why restrict tyre width? They would have self regulated. The ultra wide ones of the past would surely have disappeared of their own accord. Keeping the width within sensible limits helps straight line speed and gives more options by way of construction and compound?

David, I still maintain wings are abominable things, as far as cars are concerned, but if one cannot un-invent them, I'd second Your proposal (that was my opinion too about mounting them on suspension).

(edit) P.S. If Your winglets were mounted a bit lower, do You suppose their interaction with turbulences from the tyre could be used to reduce pressure below them even further (hence, increasing downforce)? BTW (another edit), I'd go for high front wing in front- this way You're blocking the airflow to brakes (and if you move mounting points inwards, you're increasing load fed through suspension).

the simplest rules are the best and the easiest to enforce . a virtual flat bottom from the tip of the nose to the back (back of the rear wheel) including front wing . 100cm maximum width for everything body and wings again from the nose to the back,

Originally posted by philippe charuest
the simplest rules are the best and the easiest to enforce . a virtual flat bottom from the tip of the nose to the back (back of the rear wheel) including front wing . 100cm maximum width for everything body and wings again from the nose to the back,

Did I wander into the wrong forum again?

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
Did I wander into the wrong forum again?

No, my point was that as usual history is repeating itself, put simple racing was better when we didn't have to rely on technolgy to "improve" it!

There is no reason at all why aerofoil section wings cannot simply be on the banned list along with ground effects, 4 wheel drive , fan extraction, active suspension, multi wheels, and much else that has been learned the hard way from history.

Above all else , motor racing should be good fun to watch , interesting, and an exciting spectacle , - its not been that often enough for a very long time and interest is on the decrease, certainly in this country.

Originally posted by f1steveuk


No, my point was that as usual history is repeating itself, put simple racing was better when we didn't have to rely on technolgy to "improve" it!

The problem with that is that motorsport exists in part to allow technologies to be developed and applied. You can't arbitrarily pick a point in time and say "That's what we want, lets stop now and just race this for ever".

Banning carbon brakes will do nothing - The tyre is the limiting factor

The absolute level of downforce does affect the braking distance, but I think the proportion of downforce you lose following another car is more important as far as overtaking's concerned.

If the FIA do not restict the engines in some way any effort to restrict downforce will fail because engine power will increase, so more drag can be tolerated.

Are you sure the racing's worse these days anyway? I can imagine Stewart's '68 Nurburgring win by 4 minutes being a crashing bore to watch. When it comes down to it, none of us knows what is was like to sit through a whole GP on the TV in the 50s yet we seem to think we can compare quality of racing.

Ben

Originally posted by f1steveuk

I spoke at length once with Max along with Herbie Blash, while waiting to fly out from Biggin, and he said "if it's so easy" what would you do?" So I told him, and he walked off without saying a word!! Herbie said, "he doesn't like being made to look daft, but you did!" I believe the solutions are relatively easy, what isn't so easy is making sure the teams comply (I never said cheat!!).

So? What would you do?

F1stevenuk
Are we, in this forum, so naive?
MonzaDriver.

Originally posted by MonzaDriver
F1stevenuk
Are we, in this forum, so naive?
MonzaDriver.

I'm afraid I don't understand your comment, MonzaDriver . Could you explain a little ? Thanks

Originally posted by philippe7



I'm afraid I don't understand your comment, MonzaDriver . Could you explain a little ? Thanks

It is only a question, Philippe7.
Really nothing more.
MonzaDriver.

I still think that is in the wrong forum since there seems to be little "history" being discussed, only opinons as to the current and continuing state of affairs in Formula 1. Nor have seen any evidence whatsoever of proof that "history is repeating itself," a laughable notion

Nor does this statement, "...put simple racing was better when we didn't have to rely on technolgy (sic) to 'improve' it!" really serves as an explanation. That technology has always been around to screw up or improve racing is something that is part and parcel of its nature.

Most here seem to be solid, faithful members of the Church of Technology (CoT) with no end of voices being raised in loud praise to what most accept as the absolute pinnicle of perfection within the CoT, Formula 1, because if its technical and mechanical aspects not its competitive or "entertainment" virtues. That racing would be anything but a focus for the pursuit of technical perfection is the worst of all heresies with the CoT. To think otherwise is to be a heretic and which places one in danger of being of being tossed in amongst the followers of Ned Ludd, those who think that the technical virtues are secondary to any of the other virtues. Seems as if the Luddites are either speaking more openly or no one cares what they have to say. Probably the latter.

Originally posted by Wolf


Hi Antoine! Just to stress the difference between Cyclecars and Cyclekarts- cyclekarts are pretty much regulated as they are- http://www.stevproj..../CycleKart.html . I'm thinking of making one looking like this: http://vsrnonline.co...C_V5N3_p137.jpg .

As for my proposal for Cyclecar series, I've uploadet it so that I don't lead the discussion here too much from topic: http://members.atlas...m/wolf/ccgp.htm . Some of the rules have alternative idea in brackets...

Miss-understood you... you are going to build a cyclecar but I'm more into an cyclekart project which would be based around my Honda 72cc 4-stroke moped engine which would be final in a 116cc twin-cam form and a 5 speed manual gearbox, opposed to the 3 speed semi-auto one I currently have:)

Originally posted by Antoine Pilette


Miss-understood you... you are going to build a cyclecar but I'm more into an cyclekart project which would be based around my Honda 72cc 4-stroke moped engine which would be final in a 116cc twin-cam form and a 5 speed manual gearbox, opposed to the 3 speed semi-auto one I currently have:)

Panhard will be a cyclekart (I hope to get 6.5 hp GX200 engine- and with mountain-bike wheels that should produce a fair share of thrust ). Cyclecars are just my idea for a 'realistic' racing-series.

Originally posted by MonzaDriver


F1stevenuk
Are we, in this forum, so naive?
MonzaDriver.

I have to agree, I don't understand, the comment or the question!

My point to Max was why is it that the average man on the street, who loves motorsport, is capable of seeing small ways in which racing can be improved, yet those that are "supposed" to know cannot? Max has a habit of jerking his knee, reacting to quickly without thought (how many times has qauly been changed in the last two years?).

I accuse no one on the forum of naivety (is that a word?), I suspect there is more knowledge on here than in the FIA, FOM and F1 put together, they all work in a rarified atmosphere, and cannot see the wood for the trees. Yes I agree you cannot go back, that was never my statement, but I believe you can improve the spectacle of F1, without changing the looks to much, otherwise I'd say "lets build 28 250F replicas and race them! There are obvious comparisions, where the racing is close, the winner unpredictable, and were the viewing figures are high, but having worked on "the inside" I know there to be a philosophy of "yes we know it works in other racing, but we can't be seen to copy that". I think that is short sighted, and at the end of the day, I don't want the sport that I love to die on it's feet. Indy 2005 anybody???

Wolf:
Eheheh! Guess I was thrown off track by the max. 1500cc reg. on the cyclecart page

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
I still think that is in the wrong forum since there seems to be little "history" being discussed, only opinons as to the current and continuing state of affairs in Formula 1. Nor have seen any evidence whatsoever of proof that "history is repeating itself," a laughable notion

Nor does this statement, "...put simple racing was better when we didn't have to rely on technolgy (sic) to 'improve' it!" really serves as an explanation. That technology has always been around to screw up or improve racing is something that is part and parcel of its nature.

Most here seem to be solid, faithful members of the Church of Technology (CoT) with no end of voices being raised in loud praise to what most accept as the absolute pinnicle of perfection within the CoT, Formula 1, because if its technical and mechanical aspects not its competitive or "entertainment" virtues. That racing would be anything but a focus for the pursuit of technical perfection is the worst of all heresies with the CoT. To think otherwise is to be a heretic and which places one in danger of being of being tossed in amongst the followers of Ned Ludd, those who think that the technical virtues are secondary to any of the other virtues. Seems as if the Luddites are either speaking more openly or no one cares what they have to say. Probably the latter.

As the one person at FOM who seemed even remotely concerned with the history of the sport, (look I shout, Phil Hill and Froilian Gonzalez outside the Ferrari motor home, the response from the pit channel director? Who, did they do something then?).

You cannot have go here today without the past, nor can you forget it. In the same way, this may be a nostalgia forum, but you cannot ignore what is happening today either. As I said, my point was, the CSI, FISA and the FIA have historically made changes that have ruined Grand Prix racing, so yep, it is history repeating itself!

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
Did I wander into the wrong forum again?

Hey better go look at 'The old qualifying system(s)' thread, seems to me a similar point, "but surely this is too modern!!"

Originally posted by f1steveuk
In the same way, this may be a nostalgia forum, but you cannot ignore what is happening today either.

Sure I can, not much of a problem, I do it all the time.

I still maintain that this is in the wrong forum.

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


Sure I can, not much of a problem, I do it all the time.

I still maintain that this is in the wrong forum.

Well I suppose I can identify with that, the modern sport isn't the spectacle it should be, probably why we like the past so much!!!

When I did my book on Donald Campbell, all I ever got was, "why is a young chap like you looking back into the past all the time?" Probaly the same reason I do with racing!


I concede, maybe the wrong place, but my intentions were honourable, honest!

Maybe Bira should lock this thread too !!

That would be fine as well.

In an effort to make this more relevant to TNF, may I ask when did overtaking become a problem for Grand Prix cars? I feel this is important, not only for its historical relevance, but also because, if you're trying to rectify a situation, it usually helps to know what caused it in the first place.

Mid eighties? Loss of Zandvoort. Carbon brakes. Intro of tracks such as Jerez and Magny-Cours.

Originally posted by Roger Clark
In an effort to make this more relevant to TNF, may I ask when did overtaking become a problem for Grand Prix cars? I feel this is important, not only for its historical relevance, but also because, if you're trying to rectify a situation, it usually helps to know what caused it in the first place.

When they started lining up cars in time order. If they're in speed order you're gonna have less overtaking.

I think a big thing in this was the 2x2 grid that made qualifying far more important. No chance of tooling around in qualifying to get 11th spot, but being able to make the 1st corner 1st with a bit of banzai starting and by being in a close-in 3rd row rather than needing binos to see the starting flag.

Maybe the other big thing was flat bottom cars? Made the "on top" aero far more important.

Originally posted by Roger Clark
In an effort to make this more relevant to TNF, may I ask when did overtaking become a problem for Grand Prix cars? I feel this is important, not only for its historical relevance, but also because, if you're trying to rectify a situation, it usually helps to know what caused it in the first place.

Exactly my point, needless changing of rules, jerking of knees, my post was to encourage looking back! In 3 years we'll be saying when did the cars not look so appaling, oh yeah, just before those stupid double wings were fitted!

When does nostalgia officially start anyway? A year after?

Before Max and co started tampering we did indeed have racing, overtaking, and spectacle, so to define, what actually ruined the sport?

Originally posted by f1steveuk

Before Max and co started tampering we did indeed have racing, overtaking, and spectacle, so to define, what actually ruined the sport?

But when did racing start? Take Monza and Reims - both high-speed blinds where slipstreaming was de rigeur - out of the equation and you get some pretty dull GP snorefests back from 1921.

Overtaking is not the be-all and end-all. One of the best GPs in recent years was Japan 94 where you could not see overtaking cos it was all effectively time trials. How many overtaking manoeuvres for the lead did Germany 57 boast? Anyone remember the actual move or the JMF pursuit? Monaco 61 did not have many overtaking manoeuvres for the lead.

What you want is funambulism. Right on the edge lap after lap, fighting the forces ready to rip man and car apart. You did not need overtaking to enjoy Jim Clark leading nearly every lap of every race throughout 1965, you could appreciate the artistry as he cheated the edge time and again. So much more difficult nowadays unless you're a techie geek. "Man, that automatic electronic upshift is the bomb. See how the rev regulation kicks in as MS plants the boot! Whooo."

Seems to me that the main period for overtaking in F1 was the 1970s. Formula Ford. No major technical breakthroughs and no standout drivers. When everyone's the same it's gonna be more competitive.

I see your point, but!

I'm not after overtake after overtake, Monza 1973, watching Stewart's working his way through the field, likewise Clark. Senna chasing down Prost at Monaco, we don't even get that sort of thing now.

Pit stops, and one lap qaulifying are artifical ways of pepping it all up, I'd just like to see some form of racing!

Originally posted by f1steveuk
Senna chasing down Prost at Monaco, we don't even get that sort of thing now.

I think we do, viz Schumi after Alonso at Imola (unsuccessful) and Alonso after JPM later in the year (successful).

Originally posted by f1steveuk


.......................................................what actually ruined the sport?

Sorry F1steveuk,
but everytime I read your posts, a lot of questions come into my head.

...........WHAT actually ruined the sport?
or
...........WHO actually ruined the sport?

The wings or the software, alone, in my opinion doesn't ruin anything.
MonzaDriver.

Originally posted by ensign14
I think we do, viz Schumi after Alonso at Imola (unsuccessful) and Alonso after JPM later in the year (successful).

Maybe I'm in denial!!

I know this is nostalgia (!) but, A1 has cars sliding, hell, I even saw smoke of one tyre, and it was coming out of the bend, not going in, although sadly lacking is being able to see what the driver is doing, you rarely see a flash of glove! Maybe I was just hoping that the FIA could have made it more watchable, but then that's why I suppose we have historic racinc, but be honest, F1 today can only really be fun for the people doing it?

Monza Driver, read your own signature (they look like radio control cars).

I'm not pointing fingers, maybe just dissapointed that the FIA have missed a chance, not to return, that can never happen, but to act on what the enthusiasts have been saying now for years. Perhaps I should cease posting until I can work out exactly what I'm saying!

Originally posted by f1steveuk
When does nostalgia officially start anyway? A year after?

I would think that nostalgia and history are two different things and when they "start" has been somewhat manipulated to suit the purpose at hand by no end of people. Having said that, however, it seems patently nonsensible to think that "nostalgia(/history)" kicks in after only a year. However, many seem to think anything past last week is literally The Past....

Originally posted by f1steveuk
Before Max and co started tampering we did indeed have racing, overtaking, and spectacle, so to define, what actually ruined the sport?

Who ever said this was a uniquely contemporary issue? Harken back to how the CSI managed to unintentionally sour Mike Hawthorn's victory celebration in October 1958? The problems during the Winter of 1951/1952? The generally lukewarm reaction to the 750kg formula? The problems with the Coupe d'Internationale which led to the ACF staging its own race after the Americans had done so in 1904? These are just a few examples of how this has been an ever ongoing struggle and not really anything new?

"Racing" in the sense you are referring to has been a relatively rare thing over the history of motor sports, regardless of era and locale. The technologists want the equivalent of milk runs with their products crushing everything in sight and this is often the case and why the rules are constantly being tinkered with all through history.

The problem is what so many people profess to be the rationale for their interest in motor racing -- F1 as the pinnacle of technology -- is totally antithetical to "racing" since technology has little to nothing to do with the competitive elements of racing.

If you want real, honest to goodness spectacle, put non-winged Sprint cars on the road courses. Now that would be something to watch. Lots of horsepower, marginal handling, minimal technology, visible drivers, and lots of spectacle. Even a jaded, cynical old fart like me who will never attend another F1 race even if all expenses were paid, Bernie would personally escort me, Max would let me sit in his personal section, and so forth and so, would turn up for something like that. That is about where things will have to go to break the deathspiral that F1 is currently in.

There is so much focus on F1 History, I admit getting a bit bored especially about the 60s-70s.
My interests and nostalgia is going further and further in the past or something silly like Nascar :

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
If you want real, honest to goodness spectacle, put non-winged Sprint cars on the road courses. Now that would be something to watch. Lots of horsepower, marginal handling, minimal technology, visible drivers, and lots of spectacle. Even a jaded, cynical old fart like me who will never attend another F1 race even if all expenses were paid, Bernie would personally escort me, Max would let me sit in his personal section, and so forth and so, would turn up for something like that. That is about where things will have to go to break the deathspiral that F1 is currently in.

Steady Don you were in a perverse way, nearly agreeing with me then!

and the "nostalgia/history starting after a year" that was a rehtorical question (oh my spelling).

I actually looked through the search panel and you'd be surprised how many threads like this there are!

Originally posted by f1steveuk


Maybe I'm in denial!!

I know this is nostalgia (!) but, A1 has cars sliding, hell, I even saw smoke of one tyre, and it was coming out of the bend, not going in, although sadly lacking is being able to see what the driver is doing, you rarely see a flash of glove! Maybe I was just hoping that the FIA could have made it more watchable, but then that's why I suppose we have historic racinc, but be honest, F1 today can only really be fun for the people doing it?

Monza Driver, read your own signature (they look like radio control cars).

I'm not pointing fingers, maybe just dissapointed that the FIA have missed a chance, not to return, that can never happen, but to act on what the enthusiasts have been saying now for years. Perhaps I should cease posting until I can work out exactly what I'm saying!

Sorry F1steveuk,
but the people in this forum, are competent, passionate, great readers, and old enough to have seen the F1 of the past racing. ( Me not unfortunately). Olds means also experts about life.
So dont think even for a moment that in this forum the keens will be happy, with tyres smoking,
with the view of the gloves, even with the cockpit transparent, the slide of the car you mention is not in control of the driver. Historic racing made for this???

Why you should cease posting, there is no reason.

I have read that you work inside F1, I would like to ask if in the next years a lot of tv network
all around the world, are going to buy the tv rights of F1.
I mean if the foreseen of selling, are good.
If this is a very reserved information, sorry.
MonzaDriver.

Originally posted by MonzaDriver


Sorry F1steveuk,
but the people in this forum, are competent, passionate, great readers, and old enough to have seen the F1 of the past racing. ( Me not unfortunately). Olds means also experts about life.
So dont think even for a moment that in this forum the keens will be happy, with tyres smoking,
with the view of the gloves, even with the cockpit transparent, the slide of the car you mention is not in control of the driver. Historic racing made for this???

Why you should cease posting, there is no reason.

I have read that you work inside F1, I would like to ask if in the next years a lot of tv network
all around the world, are going to buy the tv rights of F1.
I mean if the foreseen of selling, are good.
If this is a very reserved information, sorry.
MonzaDriver.

Well I'm 45, started racing when I was 9 and got as far as F3. I have been lucky enough to drive two F1 cars and an a CanAm McLaren. I was a motor museum curator for six years. I have seen drivers die, and win, and I have written books about all sorts of racing, and therefore been very, very lucky to meet all sorts of people, past and present, AND I have been called on to take part in TV programmes as an"expert" on motoring things. For a job, I write and reserch TV documentries, usually technical histories, (space flight, racing, aeroplanes), oh yeah, when I left school, I did a 4 year apprenticeship at a Rolls-Royce garage, so in short, I have fixed, built, designed, driven and researched histories of all sorts of cars, over all sorts of subjects, and where as I agree age means experience, experience also equals experience. The "keens" (nice way of putting it) I venture WOULD like to see a driver, drive, and tame a car, not corner on rails, perhaps that is why Moto GP viewing figures go up and up every week. A Ducati leaving black marks and smoke out of a corner, Toby seems to like it!!!

The reason I no longer work in F1, we were made redundant by Bernie because the viewing figures of those watching were plummeting, people were turning off. Why?? That's why I am concerned!

I am still in touch with the people I worked for, and they do not want to take on the broadcast of every race, but they would like to most of them, but how long before the price gets too much???

The bottom line is, motor racing, to survive, needs to entertain, otherwise it is only for the benefit of those doing it, and the money will dry up, then no more racing, EEEEEKKKK!!!!

Finally (phew!!!) the reason we're on here and not watching the magic box in the corner is? because we are passionate about something, surely?