Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 4 votes

Have FIA regulations killed F1?


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

Poll: Have FIA regulations killed F1? (186 member(s) have cast votes)

Have the FIA regulations killed F1?

  1. Yes (96 votes [51.61%])

    Percentage of vote: 51.61%

  2. No (90 votes [48.39%])

    Percentage of vote: 48.39%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#51 Shambolic

Shambolic
  • Member

  • 1,285 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 30 March 2014 - 18:49

It's becoming more and more clear to me that the FIA are not to blame. It is the teams that accually calls for most of the rule restrictions. I do not know why, maybe they are afraid to compete.


Pretty much.

The teams are why we have spec engine layouts, bouncy 13" tyres, DRS... They resisted and managed to overturn the rules that would have brought in more ground effect, DRS was meant to be a stop gap not a solution. The engine manufacturers bleated about costs in an open engine design formula, so we got inline 4 cylinders, later changed by more bleating, to V6's. Michelin (and probably others) wanted to go to a more "relevent" wheel diamter, but that would have meant changing the suspension ethos so the teams rigidly stuck with the 13" balloons.

And all of this is hidden by the smokescreen of "cost" whilst the same teams throw tens, hundreds, of millions at technology they already know. To me, the truth is no team wants to lose out to another if there's a major (and a bit of exhaust blowing or wing width is not major) change to things. They're all so scared of getting it wrong that they've lost sight of the challenge, and benefits, of getting it right.

And of course none of this is eased by a money siphon keeping team owners wealthy as he markets an ever more anachronistic (and corruptible) product in a death throw cash grab.

Advertisement

#52 Cozzie

Cozzie
  • Member

  • 171 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 30 March 2014 - 19:39


 

Still got it...

 

Do they still "have it"?  "shock and awe" as such.

 

 

 

 

WoW . Drivers pushing every lap. Tyres that allowed them to push every lap, 'proper noise' no fuel concerns. This is Formula one for me. Even the period up to and including 2008 was fine. But the refueling era was apparently too expensive..(and these new PU's are cheap?!)

Today,  we have to stomach an overly powerful FIA and promoter who through their own baffling and  arbitrary decisions creating a formula which further distances fans from the sport. There really is no fan engagement, they don't care about fan engagement  and might just care when it's too late.

There was no need for DRS if Bernie didn't give all his contracts to Herman Tilke whose inventions, bar 1-2 are epicly bad.

Ending the tyre war was brainless and eliminated another variable. 

So we're into a new era of F1. New but not any better. More advanced but not any more exciting. Three engine manufactures, cars lapping 4-5 seconds slower then last year, 'common' ECU's.. and POLICING EVERYWHERE.

Every time it rains we're guarenteed a delay to something, Wheel to wheel racing is often referred to stewards. I mean, how are legends born in this formula? Estoril 1985 wouldn't have even started in today's era.. Dijon 79 - can you imagine Villeneuve not being summoned to the stewards..

As much as I like Lewis and the very top drivers of today, I cannot help but feel that they would have loved to be in proper racing cars in a proper formula one like Schuey & co...I for one woud have loved to have seen them race


Edited by Cozzie, 30 March 2014 - 19:52.


#53 andyF1

andyF1
  • Member

  • 83 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 30 March 2014 - 22:37

 

 

Still got it...

 

Do they still "have it"?  "shock and awe" as such.

 

 

 

 

WoW . Drivers pushing every lap. Tyres that allowed them to push every lap, 'proper noise' no fuel concerns. This is Formula one for me. Even the period up to and including 2008 was fine. But the refueling era was apparently too expensive..(and these new PU's are cheap?!)

 

Today,  we have to stomach an overly powerful FIA and promoter who through their own baffling and  arbitrary decisions creating a formula which further distances fans from the sport. There really is no fan engagement, they don't care about fan engagement  and might just care when it's too late.

 

There was no need for DRS if Bernie didn't give all his contracts to Herman Tilke whose inventions, bar 1-2 are epicly bad.

 

Ending the tyre war was brainless and eliminated another variable. 

 

So we're into a new era of F1. New but not any better. More advanced but not any more exciting. Three engine manufactures, cars lapping 4-5 seconds slower then last year, 'common' ECU's.. and POLICING EVERYWHERE.

 

Every time it rains we're guarenteed a delay to something, Wheel to wheel racing is often referred to stewards. I mean, how are legends born in this formula? Estoril 1985 wouldn't have even started in today's era.. Dijon 79 - can you imagine Villeneuve not being summoned to the stewards..

 

As much as I like Lewis and the very top drivers of today, I cannot help but feel that they would have loved to be in proper racing cars in a proper formula one like Schuey & co...I for one woud have loved to have seen them race

 

 

As much as I agree with most of what you've said, the 1999 Monaco Grand Prix is not a good example of how fantastic things were in a previous era.



#54 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,473 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 30 March 2014 - 23:12

 

 But the refueling era was apparently too expensive..(and these new PU's are cheap?!)

 

 

Putting an end to refuelling had hardly anything to do with cost cutting. The main reason was to see more proper racing instead of deciding GPs in the pits.

We tend to forget that between 1994 and 2010 sometimes more than a full year went by before we could actually see a pass for the lead on track!



#55 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 4,819 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 30 March 2014 - 23:19

Putting an end to refuelling had hardly anything to do with cost cutting. The main reason was to see more proper racing instead of deciding GPs in the pits.

We tend to forget that between 1994 and 2010 sometimes more than a full year went by before we could actually see a pass for the lead on track!

 

officially no, the reason they banned refueling was a) safety and b) costs



#56 mongo580

mongo580
  • Member

  • 91 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 30 March 2014 - 23:19

The fact that they're doing the same race distance with 100 kg of fuel instead of the 150 kg limit under the previous rules is definitely fuel saving in my book. They're almost going as fast and the speed loss is squarely down to heavier cars and less downforce.

F1 is back to where it should have always been, leading the way in technology which will be passed on to the motor manufacturing industry. The power units are state of the art in terms of power and economy. If we've lost a bit of noise in the process, its a small price to pay for the development in engine efficiency. The previous generation of cars had no bearing on what the motor industry were doing at all. All the driver aids were banned and although superbly engineered, the engines were "old" technology. 

Now with a more limited aero package we're getting the best technology combined with cars that are a handful for the drivers and with the in-car footage we can see their skill in keeping the things on the road. 

F1 had to move on and not become a stagnant formula. Its early days, we've only had 2 races and the cars will get faster as the teams claw back downforce.

It has to be the way forward.

Isn't this what the WEC is for?



#57 andyF1

andyF1
  • Member

  • 83 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 30 March 2014 - 23:33

Putting an end to refuelling had hardly anything to do with cost cutting. The main reason was to see more proper racing instead of deciding GPs in the pits.

We tend to forget that between 1994 and 2010 sometimes more than a full year went by before we could actually see a pass for the lead on track!

 

Refuelling turned Grand Prix into chess matches and meant races were often decided by mathematicians on the pit wall. I recently watched a race from mid 1994 and the commentators were highly critical of refuelling, saying that it had made races too tactical and too focused on pit stops. I'm personally glad refuelling has gone.

 

2010 could have had the best set of regulations, if it didn't have the stupid use both compounds of tyre rule. I'd like to see a return to 2010 style regs, but with no parc ferme between quali and the race and without the annoying use both compounds of tyre rule.



#58 andyF1

andyF1
  • Member

  • 83 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 30 March 2014 - 23:34

Refuelling turned Grand Prix into chess matches and meant races were often decided by mathematicians on the pit wall. I recently watched a race from mid 1994 and the commentators were highly critical of refuelling, saying that it had made races too tactical and too focused on pit stops. I'm personally glad refuelling has gone.

 

2010 could have had the best set of regulations, if it didn't have the stupid use both compounds of tyre rule. I'd like to see a return to 2010 style regs, but with no parc ferme between quali and the race and without the annoying use both compounds of tyre rule.

 

And of course with no DRS or limited DRS at some circuits, maybe 3 or 4 uses per race.



#59 Eff One 2002

Eff One 2002
  • Member

  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 30 March 2014 - 23:54

Out:

Fuel consumption limit.

Pirelli and their over dramatization

V6 Turbo engine

ERS, KERS

DRS

Double points in the last race

Artificiality

Slower cars

Traffic in qualifying

Hermann Tilke

Pay drivers

 

 

In:

Fixed budget cap

V10/V12 engines

Michelin as a tyre provider

Real overtaking without artificial aids

More racing, less bulls**t

Old qualifying system back

Equal point distribution per race

Better response to the world wide Formula 1 community, fans and payed customers

Traditional circuits

New circuits that endorse speed and racing

I like your suggestions and couldn't agree more. I don't think the FIA have killed F1 myself... YET. But they are definitely working toward that outcome. It's also worth noting that there are some people here who would defend the decisions the FIA make if the cars ended up being remote controlled.


Edited by Eff One 2002, 31 March 2014 - 03:57.


Advertisement

#60 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,173 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 31 March 2014 - 03:22

Preserve, protect, look after, make last. All keywords of a formula once bent on pursuing speed at any cost--pushing, threatening, challenging the limits of what was physically possible even if it meant self-destruction.

There is a happy medium between these two extremes, but sadly I feel that F1's governing body is more interested in pursuing its green agenda than actually finding this medium. Formula One as it is now has well and truly become a shadow of its former self--that indefinable something that once defined the world's top tier of motorsport is either comatose or dead. My money is on comatose--and knowing the FIA, they will want to preserve it like a bad set of Pirelli tyres. We all know how that usually works out.

The new formula could be fixed with some very simple tweaks:

- Burn the aero regs--if not all of them, at least the wings. The cartoon proportions did nothing to improve overtaking over the old ones and accomplished nothing other than making the cars look stupid. How hard would it honestly be to keep the 'clean' look of the cars with the old, proportionate wings? The fact that the rulemakers were unable to even make low noses a reality without f#%king them up is indicative of their incompetence. Maybe they need to get Adrian Newey to quit and write the rulebook instead. Then you'd have good-looking cars and also level the playing field a bit amongst designers. Two birds in one stone.

- Do away with the engine 'formula' and basically limit it to a maximum power output with different restrictions on fuel capacity and engine size, something similar to WEC but a little more open. Diesel electric formula racer? Go for it. At the very least, allow for more than just a V6 petrol configuration and maybe a V6, V8, or V10 with a power output restriction--at least then, if the engines suck, it'll be a variety of suck rather than uniform suck. If you must stick with V6's, let them rev a little higher and run a little richer.

- If you're intent on the hybrid thing, scrap DRS and model KERS like push-to-pass in IndyCar. A very easy, far more tactical, and much less artificial way to incite overtaking than the 'get out of jail free' flap. Not access to the hybrid system like it once was/is, but access to additional power from the hybrid system. Have the electric itself running more or less all the time like the R18 e-tron's.

- Corrode with multiple acids the idea of double points unless the effort required to get them is twice as much as in another race (i.e. double-length).

I'm not being picky. Seriously, these are not earth-shattering changes--I don't even think they'd harm the sport all that much. Make them, and I'd be 110% on board with F1--the fact of the matter is that it's the little things that make a big difference, and when you add up a lot of little things, you get an elephant's worth of difference. Whereas before I'd be thinking about an F1 race at least for the remainder of the day after watching it, I'm now looking forward to the afternoon's IndyCar or TUSC event before the race is even over. How is this even possible?

Do I hate the idea of economical supercars? No--I love the R18 e-tron. Do I hate the idea of an obvious 'green and safe' agenda overriding the factors which attracted me to a sport I love? Absolutely. F1 should be fast. We've got that. But it should also look great, sound great, and inspire a passion for racing based on something that is not only quick but also conveys an impression of being on the cutting edge. You can bicker with me on this all you want, but I can tell you one thing: if the current formula had existed when I started watching this sport, I never would've garnered an interest. You are not going to attract new blood with cars that look and sound stupid (seriously, IndyCars sound better). There doesn't even have to be a rational basis for that opinion, because new blood will not operate on rational--it will operate on passion and 'cool factor'. And I think most here would agree that in terms of passion and cool factor, these cars might as well be shopping trolleys compared to what was running not even a decade ago, even if they are almost as fast. Would you care at all about the performance figures of a 458 Italia or McLaren F1 if it looked and sounded like a Reliant Robin? F#%k no--and neither will younger fans.

I'll close this up with a little anecdote. The other day, I showed two pictures of race cars to a friend who has a passing interest in racing--one car was the R18 e-tron, the other was this year's McLaren. Their reaction spoke volumes: upon seeing the R18 e-tron, their words were, and I quote, 'Holy crap'. Total astonishment in their eyes. You know what they did when they saw the McLaren? They laughed. They freaking laughed at the pinnacle of motorsport. I'll let you decide, in the grand scheme of things, whether or not that's important.

#61 schubacca

schubacca
  • Member

  • 837 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 31 March 2014 - 03:37

The contrived nature of F1 has spoilt it.

 

I am just waiting for competition yellows and TV timeouts to freshen up the show...



#62 x600

x600
  • Member

  • 87 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 31 March 2014 - 05:22

Wow that seemed a bit uncalled for from Ted...is there some sort of historical bad blood between them?

 

That's just the way low life journos are. As soon as you turn around, they stab you in the back.



#63 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 31 March 2014 - 06:13

the main problem imho that F1 is to complicated.

 

Why do we have a fuel flow meter, when a pipe with a fixed diameter and a fuel pressure limitation in combination with a limtitation of the boost pressure would do? Who would be sad if drivers could gets some extra HP for a short time? The limitation to 100kg fuel per race is pointless, when the fuel flow is so low that they can not use 100kg in most cases. You could have a limited Turbo Boost (say 5 seconds) instead of DRS.

 

Allow  L4, V4, L6 or whatever the engine makers want to built.

 

Remove the diffusor completely and have a total flat bottom from front to back, allow larger wings instead.

 

The Squidward Tentacles noses need to go too. (But I think no diffusor will do just that)


Edited by seahawk, 31 March 2014 - 06:46.


#64 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 31 March 2014 - 06:33

Just remember, now's the exciting part.  When it's new and the teams are struggling and trying to unlock everything and figure everything out.

 

It'll be even worse towards the end of the season or in another season or two, if the regs remain stable.  It could be staler than ever..

 

I've always been able to find positives when there are rules changes since I started following F1, have never really complained about them in my entire time on this forum, but for me.. this is the worst time.  It's been slowly going in this direction all along.. but yeah.



#65 paulrobs

paulrobs
  • Member

  • 664 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 31 March 2014 - 08:46

I'm trying to give it a go this year. still early days and I hope it will get better. Yesterday for me was a pretty boring race and I cringe every time I hear a radio message stopping drivers overtaking or urging them to overtake or complaining about someone trying to overtake or about the tyres going off or the tyres being ok. F1 has to be the pinnacle of motor racing and at the moment it's a long way off that. For sure it is over-regulated in every area - appreciate we need regulations but do we need this many? The penalties as well are a joke. Penalty points and other pealties for what seem to me to be really really minor and petty things. We seem to be striving for a formula where every engine produces the same amount of power, every car uses the same amount of fuel, every car can't ever use more than a certain amount of fuel at any one time, every driver must only ever execute a manouvre that works (otherwise he is penalised), every driver must be coached through the whole race by endless pitwall communications, every driver must praise his team and its sponsors at every possible moment on the podium and in interviews, every team must maximise this and maximise that. There is no way back to high displacement thirsty engines that make the hairs on the back on my neck stand up whenever I hear them. That is gone and I undestand it. But, having gone to smaller capacity engines and a much redued race allowance why oh why can we not at least have an instantaneous fuel flow limit that at least allows the engines to rev to their maximum rpm. I'll give it a go because the new regs and new cars need time to bed in but I'm still concerned. I watched the BTCC races yesterday and listend to Alan Gow going on about how fantastic it was to have so many cars within a fraction of a second of each other in qualifying and everyone building NGTC cars and able to go racing aqnd yet, at least in the first two races (haven't yet seen the third), was soporifically boring. That's what you get in a heavily regulated formula. F1 will likely end up this way too.



#66 CoolBreeze

CoolBreeze
  • Member

  • 2,450 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 31 March 2014 - 09:26

The day the FIA realize that F1 is not about going green, then they are not in the process of killing F1. 

 

Ask most fans, what do we want? We want good races, with simple cars. Bring back the V10s, take off the restrictions, bring back steel brakes, do away with the standard ECUs, bring back manual gearboxes. 

 

We want real overtaking, not a push of a button. We want simple, not complicated and confusing stupid rules. And oh yea..we want race car sounds..not a vacuum cleaner sound...



#67 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,539 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 31 March 2014 - 09:56

Putting an end to refuelling had hardly anything to do with cost cutting. The main reason was to see more proper racing instead of deciding GPs in the pits.

We tend to forget that between 1994 and 2010 sometimes more than a full year went by before we could actually see a pass for the lead on track!

 

But then you still had battles for the lead. The last one I can remember between WDC-contenders is in Austin 2012. Hard defending is heavily punished and with DRS you can't win in a slower car. And we got Pirelli winegums instead of refuelling. I would rather have refuelling with hard driving. I really hate the coasting and I'm beginning to feel we should have Drone-F1. The drivers are not of much use anymore. In another topic, some-one stated they had become car managers, not drivers.



#68 Fourjays

Fourjays
  • Member

  • 242 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 31 March 2014 - 10:08

Among the many (less than complimentary) conclusions I've drawn since the start of the F1 year, is the feeling a lot of F1 fans embrace the history of change as long as they can bathe in a pool of stagnation. They love to go on about the golden years of F1, which seem to be any period other than the current one (especially if there was a big name driving cars with big numbers, no matter how mediocre some of the races may have actually been).

 

Just signed in for the first time in ages to say - this!

 

I've only watched F1 solidly since 2005 (I have a few early F1 memories as a child... such as Spa 98). So I've obviously not seen many of the "golden years" in F1's history. In recent years I have watched season reviews of 1988-91, 93, 94, 96, 97 and watched parts of races from both the 70s and 80s... and I've been a little disappointed. They aren't the glorious pedal to the metal, unrestricted, pure wheel-to-wheel, non-car-dominated exciting racing that many F1 fans claim them to be when moaning about how "F1 isn't as good as it used to be". Minor differences aside, F1 has remained largely the same.  :well:

 

There has always been some degree of conservation, there have always been restrictions, there have always been dull races and exciting races, there have always been dominant teams, there has never been wheel-to-wheel racing amongst the leaders from start to finish. Overtakes and racing usually happened when a driver was out of position, or made a mistake, and that is the only area that has changed significantly overtime - drivers are less likely to be out of position in recent years (due to reliability, qualifying, team management) and also less likely to make a mistake (TC, EBDs, torque-less engines, team management).

 

The only things I'd like to see changed would be some more technical freedom for teams (to allow lower teams to find their way up through innovation), and the FIA to have more authority (the amount of internal politics, bickering and arguing is the only thing truly damaging to F1 and ultimately what prevents technical freedom IMHO).

 

So far I'm much happier with 2014 F1 than I have been with 2009-2013 F1. The cars are technically advanced and look to require driver skill to hang on to (as opposed to the last few years of boot down for more downforce).


Edited by Fourjays, 31 March 2014 - 10:10.


#69 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,984 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 31 March 2014 - 11:06

There's a lot of good and bad here:

 

Out:

Fuel consumption limit. Maybe, but I don't think it has that much of an effect, and prevents overusing your fuel allocation and having to crawl to the finish, which would probably be worse.

Pirelli and their over dramatization Looks like that's been sorted this year. I haven't seen many dramatics over tyre performance.

V6 Turbo engine I don't think it makes much difference at all to the quality of racing.

ERS, KERS No, as the world moves towards more efficient energy usage, these things should stay. It's also cutting edge stuff, so let's keep it.

DRS If we can solve the dirty air problem, then yes. So far this year it seems to be

Double points in the last race Cannot agree more. It's silly given the races are all roughly the same length.

Artificiality In what sense? How do you define real vs. artificial?

Slower cars I think we'll see the cars getting faster soon, but speeds need to be restrained for safety.

Traffic in qualifying I'd rather not go back to single car qualifying. It was pretty dull.

Hermann Tilke He's not really the problem. FIA circuit regulations are quite strict. I don't see why someone else would do a very different job.

Pay drivers I'd like all the drivers to be professionals, but where will the money come from to pay them.

 

 

In:

Fixed budget cap If it works, why not.

V10/V12 engines See above. I dont' really mind.

Michelin as a tyre provider All the same problems as Pirelli but with a different name above the door.

Real overtaking without artificial aids See above for DRS.

More racing, less bulls**t That's a bit meaningless.

Old qualifying system back Which one? By your comment above I assume you mean single car, 1-lap. But that was boring.

Equal point distribution per race Indeed

Better response to the world wide Formula 1 community, fans and payed customers Yes. F1 isn't all that good at giving us fans content and service that other top series do.

Traditional circuits I'd like that. Who would pay though? Would they have to be modified for safety? Glad Red Bull Ring is coming back.

New circuits that endorse speed and racing Pretty sure that's exactly what Mr. Tilke has been doing.


Edited by PayasYouRace, 31 March 2014 - 11:41.


#70 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,726 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 31 March 2014 - 11:40

3 kg are required for FIA fuel sample (or 1.5 L or something).  :)

That does not come out of the 100kg race fuel usage, which is measured from lights-to-flag. They may have to put sufficient fuel in the car to allow for the sample but that is basically just additional ballast.

#71 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 23,182 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 31 March 2014 - 11:41

I think this thread is an exaggerated kneejerk response after just 1 underwhelming grand prix like many others in the past - and I've seen far worse GPs. It's also typical of after a regulation change that one of the teams initially gets it more right than the others, and therefore they dominate and make the race boring like Mercedes did. Paradoxically, at the start of a new regs cycle, the races are both more unpredictable (many new factors to consider, unreliability) and more predictable (cars more spread out). Give it a few months or a year and it'll stabilize to something more similar to what we used to watch previously.
 
That being said, there are genuine reasons for concern.
 
The sound issue has been overplayed but isn't right. You'd think turbo engines would sound quieter yes but at least more menacing than the current ones. It's not the main issue but yet another small factor that makes Formula 1 that little bit less exciting. 
 
The racing has been worryingly static too, at first I thought it was because of the cars being spread out but even when we're seeing cars fighting for position there's been a weird tendency to not attack. In a way it's nice that people aren't just automatically being granted a position through DRS any time they approach a car, however it's as if often they aren't even trying which becomes a mid-00s style dull procession - see Massa vs Button yesterday. Sometimes it's the car ahead having more top speed which is fair enough (ex Hulk vs Alonso in Australia) but I'm not sure it's just that, something doesn't seem right. It can't be the fuel saving neither, the Williamses had saved more than anyone else so had no reason not to turn it up.
 
Then there's the issue of the cars not looking like they're being pushed enough and too much talk about conservation etc. Australia was hugely refreshing for that as the cut in downforce was very noticeable with all the cars being a handful, but then it wasn't anywhere near as obvious in Malaysia. I think the main culprit for that was yet again the tyres which had to be nursed very actively in the hot conditions, as seen by 3-stoppers being the most used strategy. I think fuel-saving, tyre-saving, engine-and-parts-conservation, all have been part of F1 in the past yes, but introducing ALL of these elements at the same time and with such importance is just too much. And the main detrimental factor for me continues to be the tyres, Pirelli never got the compounds right and is still too attached to the initial demand of making tyres to degrade on purpose. Any GP tyre life is an issue, everybody seems too scared to drive anywhere near the limit because it's always less competitive over a race distance to approach the limit. To me that is still a huge concern. Fair play to Pirelli for adding a nice strategical element to the racing over the last few years - but it shouldn't come at the expense of the spectacle of watching a car on its own.
 
Finally I think we often forget just what an impossibly difficult job the FIA has. With the way evolution has gone in car technology, it's impossible to open up the regulations as we had in the past and expect good racing, it's not going to happen, it wouldn't be sustainable cost-wise and it wouldn't be acceptable safety-wise anymore. Yes the way they go about it is often over-complicated and not always in the right direction with the right priorities, but every single factor they touch has a knock-on effect somewhere else. Remember the current regulations are a result of many things us the fans wanted - we wanted new technology, they brought in these engines, we wanted overtaking, they brought in DRS, we wanted a strategical element, they brought in these tyres... Be careful of what you wish for.

Edited by noikeee, 31 March 2014 - 11:42.


#72 AnR

AnR
  • Member

  • 1,578 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 31 March 2014 - 15:27

IMO it really has to change, this is nearly a parade now



#73 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 31 March 2014 - 16:11

There's a lot of good and bad here:

 

V6 Turbo engine I don't think it makes much difference at all to the quality of racing.

 

New circuits that endorse speed and racing Pretty sure that's exactly what Mr. Tilke has been doing.

 

 

1. If 6500rpm V6 turbo (similar to Ford Taurus SHO sports model for example) is just as good then why does Ferrari put a 8000rpm 6.0 L V12 in their Ferrari F12 road car? Should not the V6 turbo be equally special and dramatic, and have buyers drooling equally... no doubt the V6 would be lighter, cheaper to build and have lower emissions and is technically better?  yet this does not seem to be the perception and is not the choice the Ferrari engineers make...

 

2. Racing circuits should be exciting. Of course it not feasible to race F1 cars on Nordschliefe or Bathurst Mount Panorama and those exciting venues are saved for GT racing , but the F1 tracks should still have character.



#74 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,984 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 31 March 2014 - 16:24

1. If 6500rpm V6 turbo (similar to Ford Taurus SHO sports model for example) is just as good then why does Ferrari put a 8000rpm 6.0 L V12 in their Ferrari F12 road car? Should not the V6 turbo be equally special and dramatic, and have buyers drooling equally... no doubt the V6 would be lighter, cheaper to build and have lower emissions and is technically better?  yet this does not seem to be the perception and is not the choice the Ferrari engineers make...

 

2. Racing circuits should be exciting. Of course it not feasible to race F1 cars on Nordschliefe or Bathurst Mount Panorama and those exciting venues are saved for GT racing , but the F1 tracks should still have character.

 

1. F1 constructors aren't producing cars to sell to the general public. I'm more interested in what produces good racing when it comes to F1.

 

2. Yes I agree, racing circuits should be exciting and have character. But I'm pretty sure Herman Tilke's circuits have been explicitly designed to endorse speed and racing, which is why they have long straights and manufactured overtaking zones, etc. That is what andrea303 said.



#75 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 31 March 2014 - 16:35

I think F1 has misunderstood what they represent or are supposed to represent. By its very nature, type of car, duration of event, etc. F1 is or should be a SPEED race first and foremost, not an ENDURANCE race. The technology that is supposed to trickle down from F1 to street cars, if needed or wanted, should be related to speed: gear-changing ears come to mind. If they are looking to test energy recovery elements, optimize fuel consumption, etc. they should use ENDURANCE cars and races for testing this. If they want to do this in F1, fine, but do not compromise the main reason why spectators want to watch F1: speed and racing. An F1 weekend, like the video above, should put a smile on fan's faces, not send them hurrying to their computers to discuss how to fix something that they truly love, but feel it's decaying to the point that they will stop watching. Surely, if enough of the latter happens, it will be forced to change anyway.  



#76 MarkWRX

MarkWRX
  • Member

  • 844 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 31 March 2014 - 17:35

I find myself agreeing with Vettel on something.  Going to Grands Prix in the 70's and 80's and then again at Indy (and Austin), I would annoy my racing companions by insisting we arrive early, to catch those first rasps of the engines as they are warmed up in the pits.

 

We went to the first GP at Austin and had a conflict for the second.  I am not sure I spend the $1000 it will take (tickets plus hotel) to go again.



#77 andrea303

andrea303
  • Member

  • 404 posts
  • Joined: February 13

Posted 31 March 2014 - 17:58

 

 

2. Yes I agree, racing circuits should be exciting and have character. But I'm pretty sure Herman Tilke's circuits have been explicitly designed to endorse speed and racing, which is why they have long straights and manufactured overtaking zones, etc. That is what andrea303 said.

 

No! Maybe Tilke thinks there's going to be spectacular racing when he designs his tracks but it's not the case. The venues themselves might be. Abu Dhabi has one of the longest straights in F1 calendar. But then this guy puts slow chicanes all over and ruins the tracks leaving no flow.

 

Same goes with street circuits (Monaco should be the only one prior to it's legacy). I cried and laughed at the same time when a reporter asked Mr. Tilke in Singapore (2013 or 2012):

"So what do you think about this track Mr. Tilke?"

 

 "I think it's the best track I've ever made. It's perfect!", he answered.

 

Seriously? For sure it's cool place and the lights are awesome during the evening but the track itself doesn't offer great racing.  I think Tilke has lost it if he thinks the circuit is perfetct.

 

:)



#78 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 31 March 2014 - 18:57

No. F1 had been pointless for decades before this season. Fuel limitations were abandoned. Forced-induction was banned. The entire sport was pointless acquisition of naturally-aspirated horsepower via rpm, pointless accumulation of downforce technologies, and perverse use of electronics to intrude on driver skill. The fans were like: :love: such fast! much expensive!! massive screamy!!! super loudly!!!!

 

It was fun for a few years, but it deteriorated rapidly. The 3.5L engines were replaced with 3.0L engines. V12s disappeared. Valve limits were introduced. Then bore limits and 2.4L and V8. Then the engines were homolgated and performance balanced. The cars couldn't overtake so the FIA created DRS. The tires were grooved, then tire changes banned, then spec tires. Refueling was eventually banned. ECU's were specified.

 

The old formula was about as cool as a heroin addiction. This is the first season the FIA have actually tried to fix things by giving engineers a meaningful challenge. The aesthetics could be better, but people shouldn't be whining.



#79 skid solo

skid solo
  • Member

  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 31 March 2014 - 19:20

Best set of regulations I have seen in a long time. Even Pirelli seems to have got it right this year. The McLaren sideways under power is epic. I even like the look of the Ferrari. It's the first time in a long time that the cars have some unique identity other than just different paint jobs.
Looking forward to going to the Monaco GP in May. These cars will be as unruly as the turbo charged cars of the 1980's. Bring it on..

Advertisement

#80 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,984 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 31 March 2014 - 20:20

No! Maybe Tilke thinks there's going to be spectacular racing when he designs his tracks but it's not the case. The venues themselves might be. Abu Dhabi has one of the longest straights in F1 calendar. But then this guy puts slow chicanes all over and ruins the tracks leaving no flow.

 

Same goes with street circuits (Monaco should be the only one prior to it's legacy). I cried and laughed at the same time when a reporter asked Mr. Tilke in Singapore (2013 or 2012):

"So what do you think about this track Mr. Tilke?"

 

 "I think it's the best track I've ever made. It's perfect!", he answered.

 

Seriously? For sure it's cool place and the lights are awesome during the evening but the track itself doesn't offer great racing.  I think Tilke has lost it if he thinks the circuit is perfetct.

 

:)

 

I never said he got it right, but he's also working to very strict regulations and the finger of blame should point squarely at the FIA for that. Abu Dhabi is crap, but that wasn't the intention. He's done much better with tracks like Istanbul and Austin.



#81 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,548 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 31 March 2014 - 21:14

The biggest problem that Tilke has is not the FIA track regulations, but the land he is given to construct a racing circuit. There are only so many ways of designing a 5.5km track on 10 identical square plots of flat land. Land that may well have issues like poor drainage or located in a featureless landscape, or may even be part of some hairbrained scheme to construct an entire city around the circuit. When you then add in demands from Tilke's customers for things like a great big shiny hotel over the race track, or say including the longest straight in F1 for dick-waving purposes, his options become very limited.



#82 EvilPhil II

EvilPhil II
  • Member

  • 1,872 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 31 March 2014 - 22:22

I think the number of people voting over the years on this forum answer your question. 200 hardcore fans? laughable. 


Edited by EvilPhil II, 31 March 2014 - 22:23.


#83 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 3,143 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 31 March 2014 - 22:47

A lot of really good, we'll reasoned posts on this thread. Afterburner, it's especially nice to see you back, haven't seen anything from you in a while.

Let's just say it. F1 hasn't been killed. It's just been ruined by years worth of pussified bullshit.

Edited by spacekid, 31 March 2014 - 22:48.


#84 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 18,050 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 31 March 2014 - 22:56

Preserve, protect, look after, make last. All keywords of a formula once bent on pursuing speed at any cost--pushing, threatening, challenging the limits of what was physically possible even if it meant self-destruction....

I'll close this up with a little anecdote. The other day, I showed two pictures of race cars to a friend who has a passing interest in racing--one car was the R18 e-tron, the other was this year's McLaren. Their reaction spoke volumes: upon seeing the R18 e-tron, their words were, and I quote, 'Holy crap'. Total astonishment in their eyes. You know what they did when they saw the McLaren? They laughed. They freaking laughed at the pinnacle of motorsport. I'll let you decide, in the grand scheme of things, whether or not that's important.

 

Great post. You should visit the F1 Aesthetics thread. As if to prove your point about the R18 just behold the technological marvels; it's got fricking laser beams attached to it's head(lights) for gawds sake http://blog.caranddr...ights-2014-ces/