Jump to content


Photo

Driver rotation/Dodgins Article (merged)


  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#1 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,447 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 13 April 2009 - 14:40

I'm not a subscriber, so I didn't read the artical on the front page. But how serious can it be? The last thing F1 need is another element of randomness to make it look even more like a circus.

Does the article have any compelling argument or is it just an exercise of criativity????

http://www.autosport...cle.php/id/2101

Advertisement

#2 Gilles12

Gilles12
  • Member

  • 853 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 13 April 2009 - 14:43

Do you have a link or any source?

I see now, on the Autosport homepage - That will never happen in a million years

#3 TickTickBooom

TickTickBooom
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 13 April 2009 - 14:45

Originally posted by Gilles12
Do you have a link or any source?

It's Tony Dodgins's column. http://www.autosport...cle.php/id/2101

Haven't read it yet but he's usually a very good debater.

#4 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 16,933 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 13 April 2009 - 14:55

The thing is, it couldn't really be fair.

For example some cars do well on certain tracks then others, so if a driver happens to get lucky and is in the right teams for the right tracks, on average over a season, he may be able to pull 10 more points off with more ease, by just being in the right team on the right track.

It's all very complicated, but utlimately to be fair, every driver would need to drive every car on the same track, so we need to have like 10 races or so on the same track to give every driver a chance to do well on the same track with all the team's data and personnel and see's who does the better job.

F1 just needs to learn what worked in the 20th century, right now too much uncertainity with rival groups of minds struggeling to do what's right, bad times for f1.

#5 Gilles12

Gilles12
  • Member

  • 853 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 13 April 2009 - 14:57

And how would testing work?

Either no race driver is allowed to test or they all rotate at that too...

#6 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 19,772 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 13 April 2009 - 15:00

Originally posted by Gilles12
And how would testing work?

Either no race driver is allowed to test or they all rotate at that too...


and who hires the drivers and at what price?
Good drivers/favorite drivers end up in shit cars - live with it!

#7 Broadway

Broadway
  • Member

  • 556 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 13 April 2009 - 15:00

I have not read the article, but my spontaneous reaction to the idea of swapping drivers is "stupid beyond belief".
But I do not believe Tony Dodgins is stupid, so there must be something hidden in the article that the headline does not reveal.

#8 Gilles12

Gilles12
  • Member

  • 853 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 13 April 2009 - 15:05

It's a slow news day...

#9 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 16,933 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 13 April 2009 - 15:08

Originally posted by Gilles4Ever


and who hires the drivers and at what price?
Good drivers/favorite drivers end up in shit cars - live with it!


Also, I'm against just any driver popping on the Ferrari clothes and driving what is meant to be a very special and sought after seat, all the hype and discussions about who deserves to be what teams, and what it means to be a mclaren driver or Ferrari driver, you would lose having a familar face along with the team/car, I'm sure the sponsors and marketing people would think it's silly as well.

It's interesting to think about, but it largely just shows the basic flaw with f1 right now, the driver input/has taken a fall to a aero device that doesn't look as interesting and makes drivers look pretty much the same compared to the 20th century for the average viewer, and I'm sure die hard f1 fans miss cars sliding a bit, and having to break longer, and perhaps even a old fashioned pole position without having to think about oh so what's his fuel load, it might not be a good pole after all etc Celebrate race wins Sunday, and we used to celebrate poles on Saturday, but now there is ???????? about Saturday.

I miss the good old fashion Monaco Saturday pole fight, it was suspenseful and built up towards the end, the traffic excuse, the only but ultimately petty against reason I'll take any day other the 3 part sectioned quali with fuel we have now.

#10 tkulla

tkulla
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 13 April 2009 - 15:13

I think it's a great idea. For the first year the drivers could be "elected" by vote of the team owners. Then the top 16 or so would automatically qualify for the following year, as Tony suggests, with 4 being relegated. Instead of salaries, the drivers would compete for prize money at the events, with a championship payout at the end of the year based on the standings.

Each driver could have his own personal engineer, much like a golfer has his own caddy. This engineer would be paid a percentage of the winnings (10% or so).

And the constructors championship would be more interesting this way too, since it wouldn't be in lockstep with the WDC. You'd have to regulate development, so that teams could only make major changes at the midseason (after 10 races) break to maintain fairness.

#11 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,109 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 13 April 2009 - 15:23

It's a silly idea IMO. This is almost making a case that all drivers should have the same car. It just leads down to a spec car series. F1 is already very close enough to that.

There have been times in F1, when a driver lapped entire the field, or was at least one minute or so ahead. We hardly see that anymore, because the point system rewards consistency over wins, engines and gearboxes need to last several races. It leads to drivers cruising in the last stint.

What we really need is that driver skills mean more again. If good drivers can win or at least be on the podium in a bad car, then I believe F1 has arrived at his roots again. But most things go the opposite direction. Driver rotation would be yet another such thing. I don't want equal opportunities (spec car) in F1. I want to see the best racers to be able to show their skill behind the wheel.

Sure one could argue that with driver rotation we'd see more who the good drivers are. But it's really not that easy. Let's look at the Renault this year. A dog of a car and from what I gather difficult to set up. Set up will be a lottery with that car. OK, one could argue again, that setup is also driver skill. but is that really what racing is all about?

All I can say is when I catch the race bug myself and I do race against someone, all I'm really interested in at that moment is to race and if possible at all to come out ahead in front. Even if my car is not good enough, I just want to use my skills as good as I can. I'd never would think to swap cars just to get a revenege in case I lost. Let's stuff that equal opportunity yadda yadda into the trash bin. Racing is fun for the racer. It's even better when I win, but even if I don't win it still was fun. Excuses who needs them?

I've found it over and over the best in such discussions is to reflect on my own experiences. Anyone having done racing at any level should be able to relate to their own experiences. Only if we start from there, proper solutions can be found how to improve racing.

#12 Phucaigh

Phucaigh
  • Member

  • 2,838 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 April 2009 - 15:25

I read the article, well written, well thought out.

The point of the article is the car decides the WDC not really the driver, that can be seen this year when Button and Barrichello were written off by some but they are upfront this year, or there wasn't much between some drivers as team mates but certain team mates ended up with better cars and WDC's to show for it while their previous team mates who were as quick never got the same chance.

Maybe it wouldn't be popular but he makes good points.

#13 tifosi

tifosi
  • Member

  • 13,136 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 13 April 2009 - 15:25

I have to admit, as a Washington National's fan, I wish MLB would intoduce a pitcher-swapping rule.

#14 Broadway

Broadway
  • Member

  • 556 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 13 April 2009 - 15:35

Originally posted by tkulla
I think it's a great idea. For the first year the drivers could be "elected" by vote of the team owners. Then the top 16 or so would automatically qualify for the following year, as Tony suggests, with 4 being relegated. Instead of salaries, the drivers would compete for prize money at the events, with a championship payout at the end of the year based on the standings.

Each driver could have his own personal engineer, much like a golfer has his own caddy. This engineer would be paid a percentage of the winnings (10% or so).

And the constructors championship would be more interesting this way too, since it wouldn't be in lockstep with the WDC. You'd have to regulate development, so that teams could only make major changes at the midseason (after 10 races) break to maintain fairness.

Don't forget that the drivers would most likely have personal sponsors and around him would be a marketing team. It might not be completely without friction when a T-Mobile driver is up for driving the Vodaphone McLaren.
Without having read the article, it is wrong of me to discuss it, but just as the budget cap, there seem to be too many parameters that makes it impossible to realize this idea in a reasonably transparent and pure fashion.

#15 wewantourdarbyback

wewantourdarbyback
  • Member

  • 6,358 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 13 April 2009 - 15:37

Originally posted by tifosi
I have to admit, as a Washington National's fan, I wish MLB would intoduce a pitcher-swapping rule.

:rotfl:

#16 Lazarus II

Lazarus II
  • Member

  • 4,527 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 13 April 2009 - 16:09

I love the idea.

Every system has it faults; look no further than the present system.
Of course a driver rotation system would require adjustments, BUT we would finally be able to judge the DRIVER instead of just the car.

JPM has said F1 is all car-dependent. Discount his opinion all you like, but his opinion is based on personal experience as a participant.

IMO it is a MUCH better starting point than the present system with regards to showcasing driver talent.

#17 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 16,933 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 13 April 2009 - 16:15

Originally posted by Lazarus II
I love the idea.

Every system has it faults; look no further than the present system.
Of course a driver rotation system would require adjustments, BUT we would finally be able to judge the DRIVER instead of just the car.

JPM has said F1 is all car-dependent. Discount his opinion all you like, but his opinion is based on personal experience as a participant.

IMO it is a MUCH better starting point than the present system with regards to showcasing driver talent.





Of cource F1 is car dependent, was so in the 90s, and other decades but to a lesser extent to not make the driver look like he's on rails and just chasing 1 tenth to look special, remember the days of Senna a second ahead in qualifying?.
The actual driving was more visable when the car was less aerodised up, you won't be able to judge drivers just because there in a slower aerodyamic car, the slowest f1 car today is heaps more boring then having a driver drive Senna's Mclaren or lotus for example, get the picture why I ****** what f1's become.

I would pay more money to watch all drivers race in Senna's Mclaren then watch the rubbish they have now. The cars are the PROBLEM, and because they won't do what's needed to make the cars interesting and entertaining as they used to be, we have to put up with hearing BS ideas such as driver rotaiton, it makes me wanna :mad: :mad: :mad: and shoot all involved in even menstioning the word rotation, it's a insult to the gloryness we saw in the 20th century. There not trying hard enough, it shocks me fans will put up with this sillyness of today, but not everyone tunes in to watch good f1, they are tunning in for the locations, the start maybe, some sexy girls, silly generation keeps silly f1 going. Bernie with all his money is a toad, Max as well.

#18 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,150 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 April 2009 - 16:18

Originally posted by Phucaigh


The point of the article is the car decides the WDC not really the driver


It has always been so. It's F1 after all. I don't know why all of a sudden it is considered as a bad thing. They can change it, but it will not be F1 any more then.

#19 Broadway

Broadway
  • Member

  • 556 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 13 April 2009 - 16:22

Originally posted by Lazarus II
I love the idea.

Every system has it faults; look no further than the present system.
Of course a driver rotation system would require adjustments, BUT we would finally be able to judge the DRIVER instead of just the car.

JPM has said F1 is all car-dependent. Discount his opinion all you like, but his opinion is based on personal experience as a participant.

IMO it is a MUCH better starting point than the present system with regards to showcasing driver talent.

But... F1 is not just about finding out who is the best driver. At least it did not use to be. It is a team sport. It is about drivers coming in form nowhere, from somewhere, and fight themselves inti a top team and fight for the championship. Or about drivers that picks the wrong team. About teams picking the wrong driver. About engineers following the wrong path. About engineers getting it right.

Best way to make a championship for the drivers would be fully spec cars. 24 identical cars that is randomly given out to the teams each saturday. But that would kill F1 as we know it.
Problem now is that F1 has gone so far towards a spec series that a suggestion like "driver swap" actually makes sense for some people.

Advertisement

#20 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,150 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 April 2009 - 16:26

Originally posted by Broadway

But... F1 is not just about finding out who is the best driver. At least it did not use to be. It is a team sport. It is about drivers coming in form nowhere, from somewhere, and fight themselves inti a top team and fight for the championship. Or about drivers that picks the wrong team. About teams picking the wrong driver. About engineers following the wrong path. About engineers getting it right.

Best way to make a championship for the drivers would be fully spec cars. 24 identical cars that is randomly given out to the teams each saturday. But that would kill F1 as we know it.
Problem now is that F1 has gone so far towards a spec series that a suggestion like "driver swap" actually makes sense for some people.


:up: :up: :up: :up:

#21 tifosi

tifosi
  • Member

  • 13,136 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 13 April 2009 - 16:32

Originally posted by Galko877


It has always been so. It's F1 after all. I don't know why all of a sudden it is considered as a bad thing. They can change it, but it will not be F1 any more then.


Correct, even back in the 50s Fangio would always make sure he was in the best car. That is something that has always made F1 different.

#22 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,029 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 13 April 2009 - 16:38

Column makes no sense to me ... you want equality in machinery go watch a spec series, what's the point of playing musical chairs with the drivers.

Besides, most drivers have pretty strong bonds with their engineers. After spending lots of time together the engineer understands what his driver means when he's reporting a problem, what bias his driver has in terms of setup etc etc. That's also a big part of performance in a , let's face it, engineer driven sport.

#23 Lazarus II

Lazarus II
  • Member

  • 4,527 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 13 April 2009 - 16:41

marketing should be an aside not a main influence.



Of course F1 has always been about the car rather than the driver. I'm not saying Senna wasn't great (he was, IMO, the best), BUT the truth of the metter is Alex Yoong could have won the title in the MP4/4, F2002, or the F2004. Is that what anyone really wants to see?

A driver rotation system would still alow a true WCC, maybe even a more true WCC. The team would still get points. They still build their own car and they still prove their engineering to be superior to the next team. Hell most of the drivers are spoild brats that don't know the first thing about team play anyways. There are only a couple "top" teams, so the drivers that pick the "wrong" teams may not have any other choice if they want to be in F1 that is.

I don't think it should be a "random" draw, I think each driver should drive each car at least once per year. If you happen to have to drive car X at a curcuit that suits car Y better - tough luck for you - make the best of it and move on (same as it is now really unless you're Sutil and then that's every circuit).

Like Doggins says, the top teams will remain the top teams. Obviously some drivers will make a better impression with teams than others. This system could show which drivers communicate better with engineers than others, which driver just driver through problems, and which need too much pampering to be worth the effort....or any combination of those.

Is this system perfect - No, but it's superior to the present system that's for sure.

#24 Broadway

Broadway
  • Member

  • 556 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 13 April 2009 - 16:56

The idea is spreading outside F1, it seems. Apparently there will be a player rotation in the Premier League next season. At last we will find out who is the best manager.

#25 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,615 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 13 April 2009 - 16:59

Damn glad I canceled my subscription last month ...
:rolleyes:

#26 Lazarus II

Lazarus II
  • Member

  • 4,527 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 13 April 2009 - 17:08

Originally posted by peroa
Damn glad I canceled my subscription last month ...
:rolleyes:

Yep, only read what you agree with...it simplifies your life :p

#27 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,703 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 13 April 2009 - 17:34

Originally posted by Galko877
[B]It has always been so. It's F1 after all. I don't know why all of a sudden it is considered as a bad thing.[B]


Especially now, when the cars are closer to each other in performance than ever before.
Especially in the future, when Max has instituted other rule changes to make the cars even more similar.
Its almost as pointless as doing driver swapping in any other spec series.

#28 BWL

BWL
  • Member

  • 276 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 13 April 2009 - 17:41

Please give us driver rotation so that F1 continues to be screwed up and fans become even more confused. :down:

#29 tkulla

tkulla
  • Member

  • 3,049 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 13 April 2009 - 17:41

I'm surprised by the negative reactions to this idea. We spend hours and hours arguing whether Alonso is better than Kimi or Lewis or whoever, and this would actually give us the answers. How is that not a good thing?

Though I suppose there is the risk that you might find out that your favorite driver isn't quite what you thought him to be.

Lazarus II - 20 cars, 20 races, so each driver would drive each car once (and hence for each team twice).

#30 Clare

Clare
  • Member

  • 158 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 13 April 2009 - 17:44

driver swap 1

driver swap 2

driver swap 3

:wave:

#31 Makarias

Makarias
  • Member

  • 7,212 posts
  • Joined: December 98

Posted 13 April 2009 - 17:49

I still like the idea a lot. There could be a winter series in some spec formula (ten races or so) where the bottom five will have to qualify for their seats against top drivers from GP2 and invitees from other top series. That would be very useful imo, the length of the off-season really is murderous...

People here whose main hobby is to complain about how driver X is undeserving of his top seat would of course not like this at all. I can see how they'd miss having this neverending whinefest, but quite frankly I think I just might be able to live without it.

#32 tifosi

tifosi
  • Member

  • 13,136 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 13 April 2009 - 17:54

I for one, do not like it because to me Formula One is a team sport. A team consisting of a designer, a constructor, engineers, and drivers.

To me this would be like the NFL swapping quarterbacks each week, or having each goalie roate through the NHL every season.

#33 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,615 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 13 April 2009 - 18:20

Originally posted by Lazarus II

Yep, only read what you agree with...it simplifies your life :p


This clearly is a BS idea, so it`s not even worth a glimpse ...

#34 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 13 April 2009 - 18:23

Originally posted by tkulla
I'm surprised by the negative reactions to this idea. We spend hours and hours arguing whether Alonso is better than Kimi or Lewis or whoever, and this would actually give us the answers. How is that not a good thing?


it will not because we would then have arguments about certain track does not suit a specific car, etc, etc..which means driver A was at a disadvantage in circuit x because team P is not good on that track whereas team P is very good on circuit y which is where driver B was driving for them, therefore driver B got better results than driver A when driving for team y.

#35 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,070 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 13 April 2009 - 18:46

Why stop at drivers? We should also rotate the cars ... Ferrari should one day race with one Williams and one Force India and 2 random drivers, next race complete reshuffle, Ferrari gets a Toyota and a Redbull and two completely new drivers.

Or better yet rotate drivers cars and engines. Ferrari chassis powered by toyota driven by webber for the McLaren team
:stoned: :drunk: :stoned:

#36 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,264 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 13 April 2009 - 18:50

I think it'd be lots of fun to watch, but it's just not F1; and considering all the random rules changes we've had lately, it'd be seen as the ultimate step in turning F1 into a mockery of itself. It's very gimmicky.

#37 Broadway

Broadway
  • Member

  • 556 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 13 April 2009 - 18:59

I have a great idea! They could have different type of cars also - rally cars, touring cars, single seaters and then swap cars and compete in a duel form! They could call it... Race of Champions!

#38 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 13 April 2009 - 19:13

Originally posted by Phucaigh
I read the article, well written, well thought out.

The point of the article is the car decides the WDC not really the driver, that can be seen this year when Button and Barrichello were written off by some but they are upfront this year, or there wasn't much between some drivers as team mates but certain team mates ended up with better cars and WDC's to show for it while their previous team mates who were as quick never got the same chance.

Maybe it wouldn't be popular but he makes good points.




The car and team allways where the most import factors. The biggest B* ever in racing was the introduction of the World Driver's Championship.

#39 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 13 April 2009 - 19:18

Originally posted by HP
It's a silly idea IMO. This is almost making a case that all drivers should have the same car. It just leads down to a spec car series. F1 is already very close enough to that.

There have been times in F1, when a driver lapped entire the field, or was at least one minute or so ahead. We hardly see that anymore, because the point system rewards consistency over wins, engines and gearboxes need to last several races. It leads to drivers cruising in the last stint.

What we really need is that driver skills mean more again. If good drivers can win or at least be on the podium in a bad car, then I believe F1 has arrived at his roots again. But most things go the opposite direction. Driver rotation would be yet another such thing. I don't want equal opportunities (spec car) in F1. I want to see the best racers to be able to show their skill behind the wheel.

Sure one could argue that with driver rotation we'd see more who the good drivers are. But it's really not that easy. Let's look at the Renault this year. A dog of a car and from what I gather difficult to set up. Set up will be a lottery with that car. OK, one could argue again, that setup is also driver skill. but is that really what racing is all about?

All I can say is when I catch the race bug myself and I do race against someone, all I'm really interested in at that moment is to race and if possible at all to come out ahead in front. Even if my car is not good enough, I just want to use my skills as good as I can. I'd never would think to swap cars just to get a revenege in case I lost. Let's stuff that equal opportunity yadda yadda into the trash bin. Racing is fun for the racer. It's even better when I win, but even if I don't win it still was fun. Excuses who needs them?

I've found it over and over the best in such discussions is to reflect on my own experiences. Anyone having done racing at any level should be able to relate to their own experiences. Only if we start from there, proper solutions can be found how to improve racing.




The reason why someone won't lap the field is that the cars are closer and team are closer and drivers are closer (for most part).

Stirling Moss late breaking is something even 5 year old racers know about.

And yes racing is about setup and developing a car, that's why Brabham won 3 WDCs and Moss none.

WTF are you talking about ?!
If drivers are cruising why the Kubica - Vettel crash ?!

Advertisement

#40 Lazarus II

Lazarus II
  • Member

  • 4,527 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 13 April 2009 - 19:18

Originally posted by peroa


This clearly is a BS idea, so it`s not even worth a glimpse ...

I understand you don't like the idea, but why is that?

It's easy to say "it's crap", but explain why you think it's crap. I think it is a great idea and would love to see it implemented for the reasons I have previously mentioned.

The expenditure of running an F1 team is becoming more difficult to justify to shareholders (I am speaking of sponsors). Look no further than Branson, he said it best that F1 needs to become more relevant and costs need to come down to attract the necessary sponsorship dollars needed for F1 to survive in the changing economic conditions. Running around in circles burning fossil fuels is bound to attract the ravenous liberal wolves sooner or later. And with them come the bureaucrats seeking publicity. Who wants Nancy Pelosi and her NIMBY's friends nipping at their heals.

I'm not so sure I'd like to see F1 die, so to save itself it needs to change. IMO if F1 dies, I think it will remain dead (as we know it = a professional series). It may come back, but only as an amateur-type series.

There are two championships, make them exciting, unique, and distinct; or become extinct.

#41 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,070 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 13 April 2009 - 19:22

F1 is a team sport, you can't take possibly the most important member of that team and through them around from one race to the next. You shuffle the drivers you take away one of the most important aspects of the art of being an F1 driver, developing the car.

#42 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 13 April 2009 - 19:22

Originally posted by Lazarus II

I understand you don't like the idea, but why is that?

It's easy to say "it's crap", but explain why you think it's crap. I think it is a great idea and would love to see it implemented for the reasons I have previously mentioned.

The expenditure of running an F1 team is becoming more difficult to justify to shareholders (I am speaking of sponsors). Look no further than Branson, he said it best that F1 needs to become more relevant and costs need to come down to attract the necessary sponsorship dollars needed for F1 to survive in the changing economic conditions. Running around in circles burning fossil fuels is bound to attract the ravenous liberal wolves sooner or later. And with them come the bureaucrats seeking publicity. Who wants Nancy Pelosi and her NIMBY's friends nipping at their heals.

I'm not so sure I'd like to see F1 die, so to save itself it needs to change. IMO if F1 dies, I think it will remain dead (as we know it = a professional series). It may come back, but only as an amateur-type series.

There are two championships, make them exciting, unique, and distinct; or become extinct.




If F1 is to change it needs to free the rules and allow/force even, relevant technological innovation.
Motor racing doesn't need more racertainment circus, it need more innovation.
Either that, or death.

#43 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 13 April 2009 - 19:23

Originally posted by EthanM
F1 is a team sport, you can't take possibly the most important member of that team and through them around from one race to the next. You shuffle the drivers you take away one of the most important aspects of the art of being an F1 driver, developing the car.




True.

#44 Lazarus II

Lazarus II
  • Member

  • 4,527 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 13 April 2009 - 19:23

Originally posted by EthanM
Why stop at drivers? We should also rotate the cars ... Ferrari should one day race with one Williams and one Force India and 2 random drivers, next race complete reshuffle, Ferrari gets a Toyota and a Redbull and two completely new drivers.

Or better yet rotate drivers cars and engines. Ferrari chassis powered by toyota driven by webber for the McLaren team
:stoned: :drunk: :stoned:


Ferrari/McLaren/Toyota/Williams/etc manufactures cars, not people.

Try and debate rather than be ridiculous.

#45 Lazarus II

Lazarus II
  • Member

  • 4,527 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 13 April 2009 - 19:28

Originally posted by EthanM
F1 is a team sport, you can't take possibly the most important member of that team and through them around from one race to the next. You shuffle the drivers you take away one of the most important aspects of the art of being an F1 driver, developing the car.

It can still be a team sport and would actually be (arguably) more of a "Car Constructor Championship". Which team can build the best car and be proven to be the best by the "best drivers in the world".

F1 drivers drive the car, they don't develop it. Engineers design the car and engineers develop it. Look at what JPM says about that issue - sure there are those that disagree with him, but they have no experience whereas he has 5 or 6 years (whatever it is-was).

#46 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 13 April 2009 - 19:30

Originally posted by Lazarus II

It can still be a team sport and would actually be (arguably) more of a "Car Constructor Championship". Which team can build the best car and be proven to be the best by the "best drivers in the world".

F1 drivers drive the car, they don't develop it. Engineers design the car and engineers develop it. Look at what JPM says about that issue - sure there are those that disagree with him, but they have no experience whereas he has 5 or 6 years (whatever it is-was).




Montoya wasn't fit for F1.

#47 Lazarus II

Lazarus II
  • Member

  • 4,527 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 13 April 2009 - 19:30

Originally posted by DOF_power




If F1 is to change it needs to free the rules and allow/force even, relevant technological innovation.
Motor racing doesn't need more racertainment circus, it need more innovation.
Either that, or death.

"Racertainment" (I like your new word BTW) is what F1 is and has been for over 30-years...maybe 40!

For F1 to survive it needs to be relevent; relevent to society and relevent to the fans. Without a strong fanbase to keep it alive it will die.

#48 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,264 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 13 April 2009 - 19:31

Originally posted by Lazarus II

I understand you don't like the idea, but why is that?

It's easy to say "it's crap", but explain why you think it's crap. I think it is a great idea and would love to see it implemented for the reasons I have previously mentioned.

The expenditure of running an F1 team is becoming more difficult to justify to shareholders (I am speaking of sponsors). Look no further than Branson, he said it best that F1 needs to become more relevant and costs need to come down to attract the necessary sponsorship dollars needed for F1 to survive in the changing economic conditions. Running around in circles burning fossil fuels is bound to attract the ravenous liberal wolves sooner or later. And with them come the bureaucrats seeking publicity. Who wants Nancy Pelosi and her NIMBY's friends nipping at their heals.

I'm not so sure I'd like to see F1 die, so to save itself it needs to change. IMO if F1 dies, I think it will remain dead (as we know it = a professional series). It may come back, but only as an amateur-type series.

There are two championships, make them exciting, unique, and distinct; or become extinct.


It wouldn't be that good in a financial way, because by rotating drivers I don't think the sponsors would be pleased, for example you wouldn't be able to identify the world champion with the team sponsors in advertising. Maybe they could have individual sponsors, but then either:

a) car livery changes race to race, so the spectators can't identify the teams properly
b) car livery stays the same, with the team sponsors, so the driver's sponsors can't use his image properly

It's a mess.

#49 Lazarus II

Lazarus II
  • Member

  • 4,527 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 13 April 2009 - 19:32

Originally posted by DOF_power




Montoya wasn't fit for F1.

So his opinion is not fit? even though he lived it and we live it vicariously through others :drunk:

Try again

#50 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,070 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 13 April 2009 - 19:33

Originally posted by Lazarus II


Ferrari/McLaren/Toyota/Williams/etc manufactures cars, not people.

Try and debate rather than be ridiculous.


Why should I try to debate the ridiculous? In my opinion it's a gimmick ergo ridiculous ergo should be met with equal measures of ridicule.

Try and get off your high horse mr. only my opinion counts maybe?