99 replies to this topic

[Risil]

I have some reservations about 2014's rule changes, but overall I think they're the first step in the right direction F1's taken since FOTA convinced the teams to make the drivers more available to the media.

 

None of this is strictly relevant to Lauda's comments, I agree with every word of them. Di Montezemolo and Ecclestone are complaining -- it's easy to see LdM's self-interest as the team principal of the grandee team/manufacturer that's struggling the most (and also the one whose road marque is most wedded to the 'escapist horsepower' market), but I haven't entirely figured out why Ecclestone's behaving like he is. Perhaps he's backing up his mates at Red Bull, perhaps it's just bad discipline from a leader who lost the plot years ago. There's zero chance of going back to V8s and BE and LdM surely know that.

 

Imagine what Flav would be saying if he were still here!

[ExFlagMan]

I'd wish they allow V12, V10 and V8 again.... Which is why some of the 1990s had some of the best sounding cars ever.
 
Put them in today's cars, you'll get a lot of people watching it agian. And have the 2000s tires with no grooves. That would be very very fast.

And you would be happy to lose F1 at tracks like Spa, Monza, Monaco, Brazil and see F1 running on boring Tilke tracks in the ar*e end of nowhere.

[paulogman]

Just take the rules off. No safety rules nothing.
Run what ya brung.
Find some insane people with a death wish to drive.
Epic

[Lazy]

banning 12 cylinders because of fear of Toyota, then banning V10s, then banning V8s, what is next?    

Except those engines would never have existed if they hadn't banned turbos in the 1st place.

[Lazy]

I urge people to get on the report button, it's getting silly how many threads we have on the same subject.

[PretentiousBread]

 

 

I just find it incredible that there are so many people on this forum who waste their own time, complaining and moaning about this and that. It's rather tiring and it is a shame the forum has gone like this.

 

 

 

And what does that tell you? Maybe the sport isn't in as rude health as what the mainstream F1 media try to make you believe, once you take the blinkers off.

[PretentiousBread]

If everyone complains it's clear something is wrong, if no one complains (despite the freedom to do so) it means not much is wrong.

 

These are universal principles that apply to life in general but very applicable to F1 right now and the direction it's taken/taking.

 

This, and more people are complaining than ever. 

[fastlegs]

Formula One is the only major sport in the world that keeps making radical changes to itself every few years.

 

IMO, some good but most are unnecessary and hurt the popularity of the sport more than they help it.

 

Look at othe major sports such as football (soccer), NFL football, baseball, basketball, cricket, etc. and you rarely see a major change taking place.

 

Yes, some other forms of racing do make occasional changes but nothing like F1 keeps doing.

[wj_gibson]

This kind of assertion does crop up from time to time - stick old engines in the cars and people will watch again. This assumes that (a) a lot of one time fans have switched off, (b) that the engine rules are the primary reason for their switching off and that © a variety of V types will bring them all back.

Where is the evidence for any of a, b or c?

[ExFlagMan]

I have some reservations about 2014's rule changes, but overall I think they're the first step in the right direction F1's taken since FOTA convinced the teams to make the drivers more available to the media.
 
None of this is strictly relevant to Lauda's comments, I agree with every word of them. Di Montezemolo and Ecclestone are complaining -- it's easy to see LdM's self-interest as the team principal of the grandee team/manufacturer that's struggling the most (and also the one whose road marque is most wedded to the 'escapist horsepower' market), but I haven't entirely figured out why Ecclestone's behaving like he is. Perhaps he's backing up his mates at Red Bull, perhaps it's just bad discipline from a leader who lost the plot years ago. There's zero chance of going back to V8s and BE and LdM surely know that.
 
Imagine what Flav would be saying if he were still here!

Criticise the product, big press headline, some fans agree, CVC see the value of their investment might not be as high as they previously thought, Bernie/LdM/Mateschitz offer to take it off their hands for a lower price than CVC where hoping.
Once they complete they purchase, Bernie dons a jump suit with a big red S on the front and suggest a new 'fan friendly' formula to replace F1 - cars built by Red Bull, V8 engines by Ferrari - Lets call it Formula Red Bull-Ferrari.

Edited by ExFlagMan, 12 April 2014 - 16:41.

[Lazy]

And what does that tell you? Maybe the sport isn't in as rude health as what the mainstream F1 media try to make you believe, once you take the blinkers off.

Either that or people like to moan on the internet.

 

F1 certainly has problems, but the current regulations aren't one of them. Bernie and the financial structure of the sport is the real issue that needs addressing, I'm sure he's very happy that everybody's so distracted with the noise. 

[Gorma]

Formula One is the only major sport in the world that keeps making radical changes to itself every few years.

 

IMO, some good but most are unnecessary and hurt the popularity of the sport more than they help it.

 

Look at othe major sports such as football (soccer), NFL football, baseball, basketball, cricket, etc. and you rarely see a major change taking place.

 

Yes, some other forms of racing do make occasional changes but nothing like F1 keeps doing.

Formula one is not sport so the comparison to football and others isn't valid. Motorsport is a totally different thing with a great emphasis on the equipment. There is always a relevance to the automotive industry. Motorsport keeps changing because the equipment keeps changing. That is unless you make it a spec series.

[George Costanza]

And you would be happy to lose F1 at tracks like Spa, Monza, Monaco, Brazil and see F1 running on boring Tilke tracks in the ar*e end of nowhere.

 

Nah. Bring back all the classics... including Le Mans. Or even the 14 mile n-ring.

[fastlegs]

Formula one is not sport

 

I think you better go and read up on the definition of "sport".

[TurboF1]

Funny though, that not one complainer - not Montezemolo, not Lauda and certainly not Bernie (since it was his idea) mention the one thing that really dumbed down F1 for me, and the one thing almost ALL F1-fans are against - the double points.

 

The noise I can live with, though I'm no fan. We'll get used to it, and it has it's advantages - now we can hear what the drivers actually say over the radio and we can hear tyres screaming when leaving the pits, for example.

 

Fuel limitations - I think it has worked rather well so far. And we've always had fuel-saving already. I see no difference yet.

 

But the double points puts F1 into a clown category fully comparable with other "fixed-for-audience" sports for me. And no, I don't care if Mercedes have the titles wrapped up by Monza (they probably have - double points or not)  The double points idea goes against all what constitutes "a sport"

 

 

This is my only gripe with this season. I agree that the engine philosophy was due for a change, and I find the new tech regs and solutions fascinating. F1 is supposed to push the boundaries of technology, for better or worse. While I DO miss the scream of the v12s, v10s (!!!!!!) and the unlimited v8s of 06/19k for 07-08 etc, I embrace the new engines. I find them fascinating in a different way. I'd love to see the regs unfrozen only in regards to development potential, because I do miss that aspect of in season war, but i understand the reasons why its not so. Everything else I can live with, if not the DUMBASS double points rule. Utterly moronic move for such a "sportertainment" such as F1.  Its one step too far, and if the WDC winner is decided based on that, and wouldnt have won otherwise, itll be a crying shame and possibly the last nail for me.

[chipmcdonald]

Its a motorsport forum... I'm discussing motorsport. So how about taking your head out your ass and start being less ignorant and derogatory? 

 

 

Hear, hear!  The people that disagree seem to feel the need to be passively aggressive offensive and pompous.  If a person is going to act that way, use your real name and state what you do, otherwise you ARE being just another anonymously whiney internet denizen. 

 

The issue is on the table, like it or not.

[ExFlagMan]

Nah. Bring back all the classics... including Le Mans. Or even the 14 mile n-ring.

The point I was trying to make was that if you change the cars to what you where suggesting they would be too fast for the most of the classic circuits,
It only takes one fatal crash, especially if it involved spectators, to be shown on live TV and the broadcasters who end up in a blind panic as advertisers etc, tend not to like to be associated with that sort of scenario.

[JHSingo]

And what does that tell you? Maybe the sport isn't in as rude health as what the mainstream F1 media try to make you believe, once you take the blinkers off.

 

Take my blinkers off? How about people take their rose tinted spectacles off first?

 

Pining for V12s/V10s/V8s is utterly pointless, because it is never going to happen. If you really want that, go watch historic Formula One racing.

 

I wouldn't be so frustrated by people complaining if they offered some realistic alternatives and solutions, rather than just moaning for moaning's sake. But a bit of common sense rather than just "everything sucks" would definitely make all these topics a bit more bearable.

Edited by JHSingo, 12 April 2014 - 18:00.

[Donka]

This is all about Lauda being pissed off that the year Merc has another Brawn DD like advantage, and are likely to skate to an easy WDC/WCC, that the majority of F1 press is bad press about the lack of racing, regs, and sound.

 

He wants the news coverage to be positive, talking about Merc F1's achievements so Mercedes/Daimler can gain as much PR and technical acknowledgement as possible.

[FizzyJerk]

There are 2 aspects to this for me.

Forget Lauda, Monti and Bernie for a moment, because each have their own agenda. And let's not kid ourselves here, if Ferrari were dominating and Mercedes were struggling you might as well swap their comments around.

Then think about the track promoters who in turn want to attract spectators. What are they looking for? Atmosphere, full grandstands, profit, reduced race fees, noisy engines, drama, close racing at the front etc.

Only Bernie can sort out reduced racing fees and profit, so let's not dwell on those for the moment.

Regarding the spectators at the track.

Noisy engines, no.

Close racing at the front, no - Barring a mechanical failure or crashing into each other, the Mercs should walk it this season (and well done to them for producing the best package, not their fault, but other teams) - but there is a close battle between team mates which is good.

Close racing in mid field and at the back, yes.

Atmosphere / full grandstands, too early to tell, only attendance figures, TV figures etc will decide.

So very broadly speaking we have one definite no (level of noise), a yes (mid field battles / Hamilton v Rosberg) and a couple of let's wait and see . General consensus would probably say we've had two boring races and one good one. So for me it's too early to tell how things will pan out and let's give it until the end of the season / early next season to decide.

Me personally, it was all about the noise, atmosphere and wanting to see 2 or 3 different teams battling it out for the win. Which is why I won't be attending a race this year as originally planned with the old ball & chain (girlfriend) and spending my £1000 on a weekend in Tuscany instead, but each to their own.

Edited by FizzyJerk, 12 April 2014 - 18:38.

[Nemo1965]

This is all about Lauda being pissed off that the year Merc has another Brawn DD like advantage, and are likely to skate to an easy WDC/WCC, that the majority of F1 press is bad press about the lack of racing, regs, and sound.

 

He wants the news coverage to be positive, talking about Merc F1's achievements so Mercedes/Daimler can gain as much PR and technical acknowledgement as possible.

 

1. Does Mercedes have a Brawn like advantage with the Double Diffusor? No. The engine-rules were clear for everyone. Then again: Brawn warned the other teams in technical workgroup of, I thought, winter 2008, that a team could perhaps circumvent the diffusor rules with a double diffusor. All the other engineers laughed and said: 'No, no, we don't need a rule for that.' What did Brawn do? He built a car with a double diffusor.

 

You can say that the teams did not expect the advantage (though they could have) so in that sense they were caught out and in that view Braw had 'an unfair advantage'. I think that's bull, but hey, who am I? Anyways, any which way you see it: with the DD Brawn came with something unexpected, a technical loop-thingy, but with the engines it is totally different. Everyone knew what was coming, everyone had time enough, Mercedes did the best job. End of.

 

2. The majority of F1 press is bad press? Really? So how do you calculate that? The only thing I read is bitching and moaning by experts that they don't like the noses. In my eyes, the noses are fine. Look at the nose of the Ferrari 312 t3 (the championship-car of 1979). But bad press? Are there any reviews, written by independant journalists I mean, in which they wrote scathingly about F1? Even BEFORE Bahrain?

 

If I read the op-ed articles in magazines like Autosport, Motorsport Aktuel, RTL GP, in newspapers like De Volkskrant (Netherlands), The Guardian (UK), The New York Times (US), the opinion about this new, hybrid F1 is very positive indeed. If there is criticism uttered about the nose, there are only other people quoted. The journalists themselves seem neutral about the noses.

 

3. Lauda wants the news coverage to be positive. Well I'll be darned. Damn that rotten Niki Lauda. How dare he! Well, at least when he was on the losing side - when he burned off his skin in 1976, when the van-Brabham was prohibited in 1978 (with which he would have beaten Lotus easily), when he was boss of Jaguar and flunked, he never complained about press or bad luck or the rules working against him. Lauda never complained. Ever.

 

While Luca di M., Niki's old boss... now don't get me started there.

 

But lets put all that aside. Just imagine it is not Niki Lauda the Mercedes-guy saying it. But just Niki Lauda, the ex-F1 driver. Just imagine and then tell me again what you think of his opinion.

Edited by Nemo1965, 12 April 2014 - 19:02.

[Donka]

1. Does Mercedes have a Brawn like advantage with the Double Diffusor? No. The engine-rules were clear for everyone. Then again: Brawn warned the other teams in technical workgroup of, I thought, winter 2008, that a team could perhaps circumvent the diffusor rules with a double diffusor. All the other engineers laughed and said: 'No, no, we don't need a rule for that.' What did Brawn do? He built a car with a double diffusor.

 

You can say that the teams did not expect the advantage (though they could have) so in that sense they were caught out and in that view Braw had 'an unfair advantage'. I think that's bull, but hey, who am I? Anyways, any which way you see it: with the DD Brawn came with something unexpected, a technical loop-thingy, but with the engines it is totally different. Everyone knew what was coming, everyone had time enough, Mercedes did the best job. End of.

 

2. The majority of F1 press is bad press? Really? So how do you calculate that? The only thing I read is bitching and moaning by experts that they don't like the noses. In my eyes, the noses are fine. Look at the nose of the Ferrari 312 t3 (the championship-car of 1979). But bad press? Are there any reviews, written by independant journalists I mean, in which they wrote scathingly about F1? Even BEFORE Bahrain?

 

If I read the op-ed articles in magazines like Autosport, Motorsport Aktuel, RTL GP, in newspapers like De Volkskrant (Netherlands), The Guardian (UK), The New York Times (US), the opinion about this new, hybrid F1 is very positive indeed. If there is criticism uttered about the nose, there are only other people quoted. The journalists themselves seem neutral about the noses.

 

3. Lauda wants the news coverage to be positive. Well I'll be darned. Damn that rotten Niki Lauda. How dare he! Well, at least when he was on the losing side - when he burned off his skin in 1976, when the van-Brabham was prohibited in 1978 (with which he would have beaten Lotus easily), when he was boss of Jaguar and flunked, he never complained about press or bad luck or the rules working against him. Lauda never complained. Ever.

 

While Luca di M., Niki's old boss... now don't get me started there.

 

But lets put all that aside. Just imagine it is not Niki Lauda the Mercedes-guy saying it. But just Niki Lauda, the ex-F1 driver. Just imagine and then tell me again what you think of his opinion.

Woh...  getting a little too deep on one persons opinion.  

 

There has been a ton of negative press before the glimmer of hope that was this last GP, before that most were indifferent at best, if not negative, regarding the opening races.  You got lots of complaints from promoters, fans, Bernie, TP's, drivers, regarding a whole swath of things.  So it's not all hunky dory.

 

Regarding DD it was in reference to a significant advantage that is not easily matched by the other teams during the course of the season, and will certainly give them the ability to stack points in the beginning of the season which should lead to taking both championships.  I was not referencing the technical merits and how the advantage came about.

 

Lauda current role is to be Mercedes the auto manufacturers eyes, ears, voice, and he is acting in their interests first, simple as that.  Bad press takes away from Merc's achievements and they don't like it, my opinion.  Also, to tell others to shut-up, leave the sport, or otherwise not express their opinions freely as is their right, because it doesn't "fit the agenda", top those like Button I give the finger.

[Nemo1965]

Woh...  getting a little too deep on one persons opinion.  

 

There has been a ton of negative press before the glimmer of hope that was this last GP, before that most were indifferent at best, if not negative, regarding the opening races.  You got lots of complaints from promoters, fans, Bernie, TP's, drivers, regarding a whole swath of things.  So it's not all hunky dory.

 

Regarding DD it was in reference to a significant advantage that is not easily matched by the other teams during the course of the season, and will certainly give them the ability to stack points in the beginning of the season which should lead to taking both championships.  I was not referencing the technical merits and how the advantage came about.

 

Lauda current role is to be Mercedes the auto manufacturers eyes, ears, voice, and he is acting in their interests first, simple as that.  Bad press takes away from Merc's achievements and they don't like it, my opinion.  Also, to tell others to shut-up, leave the sport, or otherwise not express their opinions freely as is their right, because it doesn't "fit the agenda", top those like Button I give the finger.

Eh... I don't understand. If you post an opinion I can respond, right?

 

I personally like it when people grace me with attention. My bad.

[Spillage]

I think the OP's problem is a common one; false nostalgia for the 'good old days'. Take this, for example:

 

I still enjoy watching that sport if the spectacle remains. So for example if you look back at the 2004 F1 season, it was a season totally dominated Ferrari who behaved very unsportingly. But every Saturday before a race there was a chance that a brave young charger named Montoya might at least spoil the party a little by placing his lesser car on pole by way of a very stimulating lap that looked and sounded full of energy and commitment.

 

Montoya didn't take a single pole in 2004, a season which falls foul of at least five of your cited gripes with rules introduced in the past twenty years.

 

It is difficult to tell what the OP wants; what the F1 he thinks he remembers actually was. Grooved tyres, qualfying shoot-outs with race fuel, tarmac runoffs and smaller engines are all ideas that came before his cited year of 2006. Does he want to go back to the 1980s, when fuel saving was more of an issue than it is now? Does he want to go back to the 2000s, when races were processional and decided in the pitlane? Does he want to go back to 2010, when drivers could push throughout but there was a dearth of overtaking?

 

There are a number of things that I don't like F1 and I'm sure the OP and myself would agree on; I don't like tarmac runoffs, I don't like the fact that racing in the rain has effectively been outlawed and I too would like to see monstrous engines. Happily, this year the latter issue has been somewhat improved. But to oppose just about everything F1 has done in the past twenty years is downright silly - how exactly does KERS have a negative impact upon the racing? How did the introduction of grooved tyres (an unnecessary measure, I'll agree) negatively impact the show? IMHO the FIA has introduced a number of rules in the past few years (banning driver aids, banning refuelling and doing their level best to encourage overtaking on the road) that have contributed to making F1 more 'pure' and the racing more 'real'.

[ensign14]

F1 has always had periodic technical "re-sets". It simply goes with the terrain of a sport that is vastly more technology-dependent than any other. Had the internet existed in 1961 I have little doubt that complaints about the 1.5l engines would have been voiced in exactly the same way.

 

I have a book from the seventies that calls it the kiddie car era.  Mike Hawthorn's "Challenge Me The Race" records that the 1.5l formula was met with catcalls when the RAC announced it had been voted through.

[SUPRAF1]

According to Joe Saward, Silverstone has seen a large uptick in ticket sales since Hamilton's dominant win in Malaysia. I'd wager Vettel/Schumacher domination reduced track/viewer figures too because no one likes to watch someone dominating for a long time even if the regulations were more fan friendly (louder engines for example).

 

Personally, I like KERS and the fight for maximum efficiency. Efficiency doesn't necessarily mean 'green'. LaFerrari and McLaren P1 for example use KERS for performance.

 

Also I think the shootout method for qualifying is probably the best and most exciting way to do it.

 

EDIT: Has fuel saving been an issue in races so far? I don't think I've heard any team complain so far about running out. I think a few teams are actually fueling less than 100kg because the rest is extra weight.

Edited by SUPRAF1, 12 April 2014 - 23:33.

[noikeee]

I agree Formula 1 changes core regulations way way way too often and in a completely incomparable way to any other sport, which is concerning.

 

I don't agree it's moving in the wrong direction though. If anything races have become far more interesting the past few years - just check our "voting championship" results for the "rate the race" thing historically over the years, or try to watch through a recording of the early/mid-2000s races without falling asleep. I could do without the trying to sell F1 as "green" thing, I could do with different tyre compounds that didn't have so much to gain by being nursed so dramatically, and I could do without the sport being broadcasted on pay TV, but generally F1 is more fun now than it was 10 years ago.

[KnucklesAgain]

I completely agree with EvilPhil.     I have been watching F-1 since 1960 and, in my opinion, the current F-1 is the most boring formula in the past 50 years.... and it has been getting worse and worse since they started fooling with the engine formulas... banning 12 cylinders because of fear of Toyota, then banning V10s, then banning V8s, what is next?     The FIA has their collective heads up their ass.   F-1 should not be a promotional series for "Green" initiatives or a development series for car companies looking to sell shitbox economy cars.     IT IS A RACING SERIES!    If the FIA and the car companies continue on the path they have been following for the past 20 years they will destroy F-1.... no one will be interested in watching.    As a long time F-1 follower I am embarassed to say it, but Nascar now has a much more exciting product!   

Yes, F-1 is expensive... but this is due in large part to the regulations mandating ridiculous technical regulations, horribly expensive engines, energy recovery systems, battery technology... on and on.   It is time to simplify the formula, kick the shitbox economy car car companies out and get back to RACING!

 

Who are these shitbox economy car companies you want kicked out of F1? Merc, Ferrari? - not exactly shitbox economy. Renault? - multiple champion in four different F1 eras over 4 decades.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 13 April 2014 - 00:31.

[KnucklesAgain]

Everyone knows that if Ferrari were in Mercedes' position Montezemolo would be saying how great the new engines sound, how great their engines are, how others should learn how to build engines and how the new rules are the right direction for F1 with more focus on engines rather than aerodynamics. 

 

And that Lauda would say the same as Monte if he worked for Ferrari.

[KnucklesAgain]

This, and more people are complaining than ever. 

 

More people than ever know how to get to an F1 online forum is all.

[CoolBreeze]

Yeah, it's ridiculous. All the bad decisions, then we have one good race and everyone in Mercedes team are like: "Look how great Formula 1 is now, we had such a good race. This should silence all the critics blabla."

 

+1000

 

He's only singing praises because his team did well. Any other team principal would have done that. Period. 

 

I think the business model of F1 should be simple. Listen to what fans want. 

[Timstr11]

 

I think the business model of F1 should be simple. Listen to what fans want.

 

And fans are in agreement? There a many posts in this forum that will tell you fans are not in agreement.

 

The business model of F1 will be a balance between what the teams, sponsors, manufacturers, owners and fans get out of the sport.

 

With so many stakeholders, there's always going to be discussion about the direction of the sport and there will always be compromise. The fans can't have it all, Teams can't have it all. FOM can't have it all.

[PretentiousBread]

More people than ever know how to get to an F1 online forum is all.

 

That's a nice way of cheapening the views of those annoyed about F1, pretending that's all it is. What was Niki Lauda responding to then with his comments, was it a figment of his imagination that F1 viewing figures dipped 10% last year? Or maybe he was responding to Motor Sport magazine:

 

http://www.motorspor...a-1-revolution/

 

Or maybe he was responding to this forum:

 

http://forums.autosp...ions-killed-f1/

 

But as you say, it must be the simple fact that there's now more people on the internet than before, never mind that proportionately more of them are disgruntled with the course F1 has taken.

 

I've never seen as many disgruntled fans as we have now, many fans who are gradually turning their backs on the sport. Never seen so many "that was the final straw" type posts. That's the root of the moaning that, ironically, everyone moans about, - people who love the sport are hurt that it's being moved in a direction they hate, but they can't switch off from it overnight, as seems to be the ignorant solution offered up by the apologists i.e. 'don't like it, don't watch it.' which is completely insulting to anyone who's followed the sport with great interest before.

 

Me myself, i've long since cancelled my magazine subscriptions due to the above, happy in the knowledge i'm no longer contributing to something I disagree with.

[Gorma]

And that Lauda would say the same as Monte if he worked for Ferrari.

I'm not so sure about that. Monte has been complaining forever and about everything... engines, aero, tyres, testing ban, simulators, resource restriction, team order ban, KERS, Ecclestone, Mosley, Todt etc. 

[PretentiousBread]

Take my blinkers off? How about people take their rose tinted spectacles off first?

 

Pining for V12s/V10s/V8s is utterly pointless, because it is never going to happen. If you really want that, go watch historic Formula One racing.

 

I wouldn't be so frustrated by people complaining if they offered some realistic alternatives and solutions, rather than just moaning for moaning's sake. But a bit of common sense rather than just "everything sucks" would definitely make all these topics a bit more bearable.

 

I see, so if someone is to disagree with the direction the sport has taken, you get tagged with the 'rose tinted' spectacles insult. This issue goes far beyond simply engines, generally people are annoyed that F1 is slower, less challenging, more contrived and more artificial than ever before. It's a very broad spectrum.

 

This is a forum, I don't see where in the rules it states that you have to proffer up solutions to the things you dislike, like it would make any bloody difference either way. Anyway, here's a few of my alternatives and solutions:

 

**** tyres - don't have them, have good tyres

DRS - get rid of it

Slow lap times - open up the regs, so that they're not slow

Ugly noses - tweak the regs, so that they're not ugly

Quiet cars - too late, we're stuck with that it looks like. But I shall desist from saying how disappointing it is that I can barely hear an F1 car over David Croft, because I have no alternative, so I don't have a right to be vocally annoyed about that.

[chipmcdonald]

EDIT: Has fuel saving been an issue in races so far? I don't think I've heard any team complain so far about running out. I think a few teams are actually fueling less than 100kg because the rest is extra weight.

 

 

It's not an issue if you don't mind coasting to a delta as "racing", cars not revving to the limit because of a fuel flow reg, on screen info regarding fuel usage in order to follow the "race", Ferrari not being able to charge because of their poor fuel economy, and a safety car allowing a real race to break out.  Not an issue at all...

Edited by chipmcdonald, 13 April 2014 - 08:17.

[Lazy]

I see, so if someone is to disagree with the direction the sport has taken, you get tagged with the 'rose tinted' spectacles insult. This issue goes far beyond simply engines, generally people are annoyed that F1 is slower, less challenging, more contrived and more artificial than ever before. It's a very broad spectrum.

 

This is a forum, I don't see where in the rules it states that you have to proffer up solutions to the things you dislike, like it would make any bloody difference either way. Anyway, here's a few of my alternatives and solutions:

 

**** tyres - don't have them, have good tyres

DRS - get rid of it

Slow lap times - open up the regs, so that they're not slow

Ugly noses - tweak the regs, so that they're not ugly

Quiet cars - too late, we're stuck with that it looks like. But I shall desist from saying how disappointing it is that I can barely hear an F1 car over David Croft, because I have no alternative, so I don't have a right to be vocally annoyed about that.

Yeah, wouldn't  it be nice if we could go back to the times when technology was simple enough that that regs could be open, when the odd driver death was acceptable.

 

Unfortunately we can't, so we need regulations to keep things sane, and we need things like DRS to solve fundamental problems caused by the advance in technology. 

 

Define not **** tyres, I expect your definition would be a physical impossibilty that has never existed, tyre wear has always had to be managed in all forms of motorsport. Modern technology means that these parameters have become ever more critical. The tyre problems that were laid at Pirellis door last year were solely down to the teams using them outside of design parameters, but ignorant voices persisted, the mud stuck and Pirelli were forced to change the tyres and RB walked away with the rest of the championship. Everybody was really happy about that right? So much complaining is done by people who don't understand the complexities, who have very little relevant data and don't bother to find it.

 

Ugly noses are a safety issue. You could regulate them to be "not ugly" but then you would stifle any innovation. It's funny that people want to open the regs with disregard to safety but when it comes to some superficial aesthetic issue, they want rigid regs so they don't have to suffer this horrific abuse to their eyes.

 

Lap speeds are a safety issue, nothing more, if you have a problem with it you should take it up with the drivers and marshalls who's lives are most at risk.

 

Loud cars, people complain about artificiality but then they want to artificially maintain out dated, inefficient and irrelevant engines just so it can be loud. A loudness that is so extreme that it presents a very real hazard to anyone who attends a race, let alone people who work with the cars full time. Take your child to see a race and there is a very high chance or permanent hearing damage, but the most important thing is that it's loud in the car park right? And screw anybody living close to the circuit, we need our ear damage. The whole argument is so dumb I can hardly believe that people are seriously pursuing it.

 

F1 has never been the perfect ideal people seem to suggest, the new regulations provide a lot more positives than negatives. 

[Lee Nicolle]

A bit of perspective would be nice.

 

Let's look at the facts. We already know that if these new engines hadn't come in, Renault and Mercedes would have quit. And precisely who would have replaced them? There was zero interest in manufacturers to enter F1 with the V8s. So what we have been left with? Yes, noisy engines, but perhaps only one supplier - Ferrari. Now you tell me that would have been better than what we have now. You tell me that would have been a healthy championship.

 

Because it wouldn't be. Hell, if F1 is "dying" right now, what would it have been doing if the sport had remained with V8s?!

 

And now look at the impact the new engines have had in a short space of time. Honda is definitely coming back for 2015, there has been talk of BMW, and Ford/Cosworth too. How is that in any way a bad thing?

 

I do wish the internet, and this forum, existed at the time of other big rule changes. What about in the 50s when they went to F2 regulations? Or when manufacturers no longer started putting the engines in the front of the car? "Oh no, F1 is dying! In a few years there will be no F1!"

I suspect the manufacturers would stay anyway. The 'sport'??? has became so technical and so expensive that even manufacturers cannot afford to do it anymore. They may bleat about the brave new technology BUT they can achieve far more road car development  far cheaper than in F1. Racing cars that try to be Prius's are counterproductive.

And the amount of rules just about engines and electrics is about 6 times more than 20 years ago for the whole car and team! An aquaintance who spent a year O/S 3 years back working on F1 has said the cars and the whole deal is becoming irrelevant. He enjoyed his time but was glad to be out of it. The cars look silly and are so hitech they have a cast of engine technichians bigger than what the team should be. This year F1 has less teams, it may gain one but possibly lose two. Just on cost and the lack of spectator interest. After mid season I think this will show more. Plus it appears the FIA are fighting the teams, Horner has probably started something the may wish they had not. Not good for the supposed sport. Less cost equals more players which equals more bums on seats. Who wish to watch racing, not battery charge guages on TV! 

[Crafty]

I suspect the manufacturers would stay anyway. The 'sport'??? has became so technical and so expensive that even manufacturers cannot afford to do it anymore. They may bleat about the brave new technology BUT they can achieve far more road car development  far cheaper than in F1. Racing cars that try to be Prius's are counterproductive.

And the amount of rules just about engines and electrics is about 6 times more than 20 years ago for the whole car and team! An aquaintance who spent a year O/S 3 years back working on F1 has said the cars and the whole deal is becoming irrelevant. He enjoyed his time but was glad to be out of it. The cars look silly and are so hitech they have a cast of engine technichians bigger than what the team should be. This year F1 has less teams, it may gain one but possibly lose two. Just on cost and the lack of spectator interest. After mid season I think this will show more. Plus it appears the FIA are fighting the teams, Horner has probably started something the may wish they had not. Not good for the supposed sport. Less cost equals more players which equals more bums on seats. Who wish to watch racing, not battery charge guages on TV! 

 

Manufacturers forced the engne change, otherwise they would have left. The new regs have encouraged Honda to re-join the sport. Would not have happened if they had stuck with the V8 engine.

 

Expense and complexity is nothing new in F1, go and read up about the active suspension cars in the early 90s, or the McLaren MP4/1 that pioneered the use of carbon fibre for the monocoque, or the first gearboxes with sequential shifts etc.

 

Part of the point of F1 is to push advancements in technology.. 

 

FIA is not fighting the teams, Horner is trying to swing the lead because they aren't winning, he thinks by stirring up trouble he can get others on side and rules changed to let them get back up front again. Monte is doing pretty much the same.

 

I don't get these threads, people whine and bitch that still watch and then post again about how awful everything is time and time again. Its pathetic. If you don't like it don't watch, go read a book, take a walk in the countryside, play tiddlywinks, watch porn - whatever floats your boat, people seem to enjoy torturing themselves with this terrible sport and are obsessed with sharing their misery with others. Whats funnier is they have no practical solutions, all we hear is a return to the "good old days" over the 90s or the previous decade, because its an era thy liked.. well why don't we go back to the 60s with coventry climax engines ? or the 50s ? their posts have no logic and make no sense.

 

What you see today is F1, just asthe 80s werent like the 70s or the 90s weren't like the 80s etc.

 

If you don't like it you aren't an F1 fan, just a fan of what F1 was 10/20/30 years ago. If thats the case, go watch some historic racing or Euro BOSS etc.

Edited by Crafty, 13 April 2014 - 09:32.

[PretentiousBread]

Yeah, wouldn't  it be nice if we could go back to the times when technology was simple enough that that regs could be open, when the odd driver death was acceptable.

 

Unfortunately we can't, so we need regulations to keep things sane, and we need things like DRS to solve fundamental problems caused by the advance in technology. 

 

Define not **** tyres, I expect your definition would be a physical impossibilty that has never existed, tyre wear has always had to be managed in all forms of motorsport. Modern technology means that these parameters have become ever more critical. The tyre problems that were laid at Pirellis door last year were solely down to the teams using them outside of design parameters, but ignorant voices persisted, the mud stuck and Pirelli were forced to change the tyres and RB walked away with the rest of the championship. Everybody was really happy about that right? So much complaining is done by people who don't understand the complexities, who have very little relevant data and don't bother to find it.

 

Ugly noses are a safety issue. You could regulate them to be "not ugly" but then you would stifle any innovation. It's funny that people want to open the regs with disregard to safety but when it comes to some superficial aesthetic issue, they want rigid regs so they don't have to suffer this horrific abuse to their eyes.

 

Lap speeds are a safety issue, nothing more, if you have a problem with it you should take it up with the drivers and marshalls who's lives are most at risk.

 

Loud cars, people complain about artificiality but then they want to artificially maintain out dated, inefficient and irrelevant engines just so it can be loud. A loudness that is so extreme that it presents a very real hazard to anyone who attends a race, let alone people who work with the cars full time. Take your child to see a race and there is a very high chance or permanent hearing damage, but the most important thing is that it's loud in the car park right? And screw anybody living close to the circuit, we need our ear damage. The whole argument is so dumb I can hardly believe that people are seriously pursuing it.

 

F1 has never been the perfect ideal people seem to suggest, the new regulations provide a lot more positives than negatives. 

 

I don't know where to begin with this, perhaps that every point you've made is a complete strawman:

 

Equating giving the teams more technical freedom to more deaths - ridiculous, unbelievably daft strawman. It's a given that safety should be maintained. I'm saying open up the regs, i'm not saying give them a completely blank canvas. We're miles off the pace of F1 cars in 2004, and we haven't had a driver death since 1994. The cars have been getting progressively slower, not faster, why the sudden need to make them slower in the interests of safety? Where was it stated that the cars were being slowed down for safety in the 2014 regs? I've seen you peddle this argument like the cars are this slow out of a safety necessity, that's nonsense. 

 

Define non **** tyres? Tyres that aren't designed to rapidly degrade for a cheap show, or that can actually handle the rigours that an F1 car puts them through would be nice, i.e. what we always had for better or worse before Pirelli. And don't even begin to compare the Pirelli shambles of 2013 with the occasional puncture we used to see, back when tyre companies had to push the limits of performance.

 

The noses are ugly precisely because of the narrow parameters the teams were allowed to design them (and a flawed thought process on safety), they were boxed in to making them this way. Otherwise, the noses would be in proportion with the rest of the car. Allowing them technical freedom gives teams the choice, and if you occasionally saw the odd ugly nose, ala Williams walrus, it's because it was a design innovation, not to tick a health and safety box. 

 

And the last point about noise, again, why the sudden "think of the children" plea? Like the bogus safety argument, suddenly what F1 has always been doing - being fast and loud - is almost a criminal activity. As far as i'm aware, earplugs have been available for a very long time. Taking a child to a loud F1 race without ear protection and then blaming F1 is akin to taking your child out on a bike,  not making them wear a helmet, and blaming the bike if they get hurt. And again, this was not the reason for why the cars are quiet, just a convenient justification for the apologists to use.

Edited by PretentiousBread, 13 April 2014 - 09:31.

[wj_gibson]

Ironically, of course, the current regs give rise to a much greater diversity of nose shapes than any time in the last 25 years or more. I had this conversation last night with a mate of mine and we both agree this is a good thing. You can distinguish the cars by shape again.

Tell you what else gets on my nerves - people prefixing their moan with the whole "I've watched this sport since [insert year]..." The subtext of this line of argumentation is that long term fans are put off by the current formula. Well, I've watched every season since I was seven years old (1984 since you ask) and I'm more excited about this formula than any I've known.

[Lazy]

 

 

 

 

Equating giving the teams more technical freedom to more deaths - ridiculous, unbelievably daft strawman. It's a given that safety should be maintained. I'm saying open up the regs, i'm not saying give them a completely blank canvas. We're miles off the pace of F1 cars in 2004, and we haven't had a driver death since 1994. The cars have been getting progressively slower, not faster, why the sudden need to make them slower in the interests of safety? Where was it stated that the cars were being slowed down for safety in the 2014 regs? I've seen you peddle this argument like the cars are this slow out of a safety necessity, that's nonsense. 

 

 

 

Why do they slow them down then? It's certainly nothing to do with the engine formula, or do you think they do it just to wind you up? I know it's fashionable to think of the FIA as a bunch of halfwitted morons but it's just not true. They are intelligent people balancing a lot of very complex parameters, a lot of which we are probably not aware of. If you take the time to read some of the articles written by people actually in the Technical Working Group, their reasoning's become a lot clearer.

 

Define non **** tyres? Tyres that aren't designed to rapidly degrade for a cheap show, or that can actually handle the rigours that an F1 car puts them through would be nice, i.e. what we always had for better or worse before Pirelli. And don't even begin to compare the Pirelli shambles of 2013 with the occasional puncture we used to see, back when tyre companies had to push the limits of performance.

 

As has been explained, the problems with last years tyres was purely down to teams using them outside design parameters. 

 

The noses are ugly precisely because of the narrow parameters the teams were allowed to design them (and a flawed thought process on safety), they were boxed in to making them this way. Otherwise, the noses would be in proportion with the rest of the car. Allowing them technical freedom gives teams the choice, and if you occasionally saw the odd ugly nose, ala Williams walrus, it's because it was a design innovation, not to tick a health and safety box.

 

No, the need for low noses was decided on safety grounds, you have decided that it's flawed but a lot of more intelligent, more experienced, better trained and better informed people think differently. Some of them are "ugly" because they left the regs free enough to allow innovation. 

 

And the last point about noise, again, why the sudden "think of the children" plea? Like the bogus safety argument, suddenly what F1 has always been doing - being fast and loud - is almost a criminal activity. As far as i'm aware, earplugs have been available for a very long time. Taking a child to a loud F1 race without ear protection and then blaming F1 is akin to taking your child out on a bike,  not making them wear a helmet, and blaming the bike if they get hurt. And again, this was not the reason for why the cars are quiet, just a convenient justification for the apologists to use.

 

It's one thing if it's loud because that's the way they needed to be to be fast. But that's not true anymore, the best PU's are not as loud, and that being the case it's just stupid to make them artificially and dangerously loud just so you can get a buzz in the car park. 

[JHSingo]

I see, so if someone is to disagree with the direction the sport has taken, you get tagged with the 'rose tinted' spectacles insult. This issue goes far beyond simply engines, generally people are annoyed that F1 is slower, less challenging, more contrived and more artificial than ever before. It's a very broad spectrum.

 

This is a forum, I don't see where in the rules it states that you have to proffer up solutions to the things you dislike, like it would make any bloody difference either way. Anyway, here's a few of my alternatives and solutions:

 

**** tyres - don't have them, have good tyres

DRS - get rid of it

Slow lap times - open up the regs, so that they're not slow

Ugly noses - tweak the regs, so that they're not ugly

Quiet cars - too late, we're stuck with that it looks like. But I shall desist from saying how disappointing it is that I can barely hear an F1 car over David Croft, because I have no alternative, so I don't have a right to be vocally annoyed about that.

 

Yes. I don't mean this as a personal attack, but it is posts like these that really make me laugh. Have you got any facts to back up any of your claims?

 

Let's have a look.

 

The cars are slower - well, in fact, if you read this week's Autosport, you'd find they're not much slower than the V8 cars.In fact, not only are the cars quite a bit quicker in a straight line, the pole time for this year was only 0.855s slower than last year's. When you consider that these cars are 50kg heavier than 2013 cars, not to mention are very undeveloped - it is clear they are going to go a lot faster. We're three races into a brand new regulation cycle. Give it time, because when teams learn more about the cars/get more downforce back, they are going to go a lot faster. So that's a weak argument.

 

Less challenging - really, how do you define that? If anything, with all that drivers have to do these days, they're far more challenging. Plus, with the extra torque the new engines produce, as well as the downforce they've lost, it is clear the cars are much more of a handful to drive than last year, where they were basically glued to the road. In fact, I'm pretty sure quite a few drivers have spoken about how much more of a challenge they are to drive. So again, that's a very weak argument.

 

More contrived/artificial than ever - how? I don't see anything on these new cars that backs that up. Especially from last year when (to use your terminology) we had "****" tyres, and so far we haven't had any problems, or heard nearly as much complaining from drivers/teams.

 

As for the rest of your points:

**** tyres - already addressed.

DRS - as we saw, particularly at the last race, drivers are able to overtake in non-DRS zones, so while I'm not a huge fan of the concept, I don't find it a massively negative thing. In fact, when people are saying F1 should listen to fans, well, this is exactly what they did. People wanted more overtaking, so they brought in something that would aid overtaking.

Slow lap times - already addressed.

Ugly noses - so aesthetics are more important than driver safety, in your opinion? Interesting.

Quiet cars - As Autosport proved last week, this has been blown massively out of proportion. They're still louder than NASCARs, and louder engines are on their way for people who enjoy losing their hearing. So again, what's the problem?

 

See? This way it is much easier to have a productive debate about these "issues" you claim F1 is facing, instead of just merely dismissing everything.

Edited by JHSingo, 13 April 2014 - 11:57.

[HeadFirst]

And what does that tell you? Maybe the sport isn't in as rude health as what the mainstream F1 media try to make you believe, once you take the blinkers off.

 

Or perhaps some people have nothing better to do than complain, complain, complain.

[Bartonz20let]

It's not an issue if you don't mind coasting to a delta as "racing", cars not revving to the limit because of a fuel flow reg, on screen info regarding fuel usage in order to follow the "race", Ferrari not being able to charge because of their poor fuel economy, and a safety car allowing a real race to break out. Not an issue at all...

Lol, Ferrari haven't been able to challenge (again) because they have built a dog (again). I must admit, it's hard to judge the Aero of the car because the power delivery & enonomy of the engine are so bad, ironic considering this is the engine they pushed to introduce. Yet I believe there issues run deeper.

On the other side we have Merc who seem to already be in a position where the can under fuel and be faster than dragging a tank round using full power.

[uffen]

Or perhaps some people have nothing better to do than complain, complain, complain.

Not aiming at you, HeadFirst, but just about every post, positive or negative, involves complaining. I believe that the complainers do so because they are upset by something in their favoutite sport. I also think that the "complain about the complainers" is a reaction to the fact that the issue has no real resolutionn that would satisfy everyone. For example, this season may be the first one where JHSingo can safely attend a live race, and that's good. Similarly, PretentiousBread may stay away, but that's bad.

[superden]

The fact that he may, or may not, have a 'hidden agenda' is irrelevant to me, I agree with everything he said.

[Crafty]

Maybe those claiming falling viewing figures would like to explain this:

http://nbcsportsgrou...bcsn-this-week/

BAHRAIN GRAND PRIX RECORD VIEWERSHIP CONTRIBUTES TO BEST FORMULA ONE VIEWERSHIP OVER FIRST THREE RACES IN A DECADE

The first night race in Bahrain Grand Prix history produced the most-watched non-domestic Formula One race on cable in three years, including the most-watched race on NBCSN since the network began televising the circuit last year.

Sunday’s race (10:30 a.m. – 12:53 p.m. ET) averaged 594,000 viewers, the most for a non-domestic F1 race on cable since the 2011 Monaco Grand Prix on SPEED (627,000 viewers). The previous best for an F1 race on NBCSN was last year’s Abu Dhabi Grand Prix (354,000 viewers).

The viewership was also up 435% from NBCSN’s third race last year (111,000 viewers) for the Chinese Grand Prix.

The first three races have averaged 364,000 viewers, making this season the most-watched through the first three races on cable in a decade (SPEED, 2004, 382,000). The 364,000 average viewers is up 206% vs. the first three in 2013 on NBCSN (119,000) and up 46% vs. SPEED’s first three races in 2012 (250,000).

Ok, so not huge figures, but F1 in America rarely does, the point is there is a huge uptake in the USA for 2014, which can only be good news.

Edited by Crafty, 13 April 2014 - 19:16.

[Nemo1965]

The fact that he may, or may not, have a 'hidden agenda' is irrelevant to me, I agree with everything he said.

 

Exactly. The first thing you have to ask, in things like this, is: is this opinion viable? Then and only then: who says it? How does this relate to things this person has said before?

 

In the past eight years, many teammanagers were like drums: you only hear them when they are being beaten. You can't say that about Mercedes and their staff...

[Dunc]

Can we please have a sub forum for all these damn threads complaining about the sport and it's current direction. It's getting that I don't really bother visiting RC that much any more.

Hear hear! Nostalgia for seasons back is almost certainly misplaced, it was probably nothing like as good as you remember. Enjoy what you have and make the most of now.