68 replies to this topic

[ardbeg]

Was reading the article about why a F1 car is only 6/s per lap faster than a GP2 car. There is enourmus amounts oof millions poured into every second.

I used to care a bit. When someone brought in something new, I was interested even if it was just another winglet, a new exhaust placement or a new diffuser. Or before that, if it was a V12 or a V8. Nowadays I don't care. Over the season there are no visual changes and the regulations does not allow for anything amazing to enter the track. The PU's... they are black boxes and the content are so secret that not even the experts knows the difference between black box A and black box B.

 

My personal option is that the tech part has run it's course. They can build better cars but are not allowed to, instead they have to constantly reinvent themselves and build a new car every year that is a little bit slower than the one they had before. To great expense.

I'm leaning towards that they should just go in the other direction, towards Indycar, and race.

I do not want to hear about economic crisis and teams that can not afford to race, or pay the staff no more.

[slideways]

Tech is everything. If they are no longer prototypes, it is no longer F1.

 

That said, there is space for MotoGP style customer satellite teams & I'd prefer single cars than 3 car works teams.

 

The FIA has done a crap job of channelling F1 spend towards relevant areas but that is nothing new.

 

The new power units are great although next year I would call for the fuel flow rates to be done away with and the teams be allowed to chase higher power levels both ICE and ERS.

[fZero]

The technology arms races is absolutely necessary for F1, it's half of it's identity, with the other half being the drivers and their win at all cost approach.

 

Take away the tech the teams lose their identity entirely, the competition between teams loses a lot of its meaning and we are left with guys going around in circles for no apparent reason.

[Lemans]

The spec parts really bother me. It may seem ridiculous but I hate the fact that every F1 car has the same instrumention (1 of 2 choices from TAG/McLaren electronics) in the cockpit. I used to love seeing the different instrument panels and cockpit layouts in the past. It may seem an insignificant issue to some but to me, that kind of stuff is very important.

[KirilVarbanov]

If it's not technology, it won't be F1. The clever spending is very much needed, however, not via spec series. 

[Sash1]

I don't care much for the aero package, altough I do like simple wide low wings and venturi's. But not every effin winglet, 9th stage on a frontwing and whatever. The difference on an F1 car should come from the tech like engine, suspension. I loved the Williams activise suspension systems, the Ferrari qualifying engines. With a freeze on in season engine development, limited number of engines and gearboxes it has become quite boring. Also because you just cannot feel/see/hear the electric part of the PU.

Things don't have to be spec. Just limited the number of parts you can use in wings, ban all little wings, the suspension system should just consist of minimum wide, round rods, eff off with monkey seats etc. Progress should come from raw engine power, not some aero development Boeing is never going to use for example.

[kraduk]

All of that maybe true, but is it not better to have a highly speced series than nothing at all? Yes it will be different but things have to move forward. The trouble I see is things are going to have to really break before they get better, and we are nowhere near that point yet.

[sabjit]

Yes, we do.

[dweller23]

Why would I care about it? There are tons of things in life to care about and few people drowning their millions of dollars to make a car a few thousands of a second faster is not something I care about. I enjoy racing in F1 and that's about it.

[SenorSjon]

The spec parts really bother me. It may seem ridiculous but I hate the fact that every F1 car has the same instrumention (1 of 2 choices from TAG/McLaren electronics) in the cockpit. I used to love seeing the different instrument panels and cockpit layouts in the past. It may seem an insignificant issue to some but to me, that kind of stuff is very important.

 

Exactly! You could instantly see the moment the onboard switched to which car you were looking. Especially cockpit designs varied a lot. The V-shaped Williams cockpit, vs the more rounded Ferrari one. You were left guessing and searching for the gadgets on the steering wheel in the different cars. You now have every car with the same LED strip for revs and/or the flatscreen on the wheel.

 

I also dislike the standard ECU, etc.

 

But I don't care for the xxth iteration of a front wing with another curve to one of the 6 stacks on either side. Especially when someone damages it and the teams forgo of changing it. The 8 seconds changing it costs more time than it can make up in 30-40 laps of racing.

 

But Chandhok of all people has my thoughts spelled out.

https://eurosport.ya...928895--f1.html

[Oho]

The technology arms races is absolutely necessary for F1, it's half of it's identity....

 

Really seems more like a race on who can fill a cavity fastest with the patients mouth shut at all times when there are speedy, convenient and cost effective ways to get trick done when restrictions on the patient opening his or her mouth are lifted.

[Gyno]

Karuun chandhok is right..

F1 needs to take a good hard look at the cars from the 90's and copy them and start all over again.

No need for all this **** we have today.

 

Go back to Active suspension and ground force and engines that last for 1 weekend with no fuel limits and tires that can be pushed hard on.

The downforce should be the same level as the mid 90's when cars could follow each other through corners.

 

We even had Yamaha engines back then that were cheap and yet delivered enough power for Arrows and Damon Hill to lead a race at 1 point.

Sure they blew up alot but that is another thing missing in todays F1.

Back then you would be at the edge of your seat and praying for the engine not to blow up if your favorite driver was leading the race.

Or praying that it would if your least favorite driver was leading the race.

 

The engines back then cost a small fraction of todays engines and were more powerful and sounded GREAT.

I would love for that era to come back.

[johnmhinds]

The technology is important to the sport, if they stop developing new things each year and make more spec parts then the sport will lose a lot of hardcore fans who are interested in the engineering side of the sport.

 

But is that worth the teams spending $1billion a year on it ? Not really, not when the majority of the casual viewers couldn't give a crap about what little tweaks a team did to an engine or a wing because those viewers are just tuning in to watch the race driver soap opera.

 

The sport doesn't help itself either though when the race broadcasts are woeful at showing off any of the technology and the camera angles never show off the speed of these cars.

 

And the teams constantly screw themselves over by spending all weekend hiding every new development from the cameras.

Edited by johnmhinds, 18 November 2014 - 11:01.

[rhukkas]

This six-second thing is a bit of a red-herring. The money is spent optimising the car to the set of regulations of the time. If you told the teams no more wings they'd still spend the money, and they'd go slower than GP2. So you'll always get this bizarre cost to lap time ratio that doesn't really make sense. But in effect it does.

 

You could spend a million and build a car that'd lap MUCH faster than an F1 car. 

[ardbeg]

The technology arms races is absolutely necessary for F1, it's half of it's identity, with the other half being the drivers and their win at all cost approach.

 

Take away the tech the teams lose their identity entirely, the competition between teams loses a lot of its meaning and we are left with guys going around in circles for no apparent reason.

As I see it, you have currently, in best cases, 3-4 drivers that drives around for a "reason" and then a bunch that has no hope. The tech races has since long became an absurd display of multi million polishing a design that are so strictly regulated that all you can do is to polish it.

[Jovanotti]

In F1 terms, I'm a child of the early 2000's when every weekend, teams would bring new aero components, engines, fuels and practically built special cars just for qualifying. I loved this madness, but I'm being realistic enough to see that it couldn't go on forever. The racing today is way, way better than ten years ago, and that's what counts for me. Technology is imporant and I would definitely stop watching if F1 became a spec series, but I feel the current situation is an okayish compromise. In-season development and testing should be opened up a bit though, and could easily be financed for the smaller teams via fairer distribution of the TV money.

Ironically, the "everything used to be better"-brigade who argue against today's cars are usually the same people who cry about the "horrible sound" of the new power units and want to go back to V8's, when in fact these new engines represent today what the development races were to F1 back then: genuine cutting edge technology. With all the restrictions in mind (namely fuel flow/consumption and required reliability), these power units are truly amazing.

Edited by Jovanotti, 18 November 2014 - 13:42.

[EthanM]

The honest answer is when you spend a few hundred mil per season no matter what you do it's "edgy" from a tech point of view. Beyond that people get entrenched on what they perceive as benefiting or harming whichever team/driver they support. Pirelli can come up with awesome tyre tech that makes tyres last 5 seasons, if people's team/driver is loosing the tyres will suck cause their team/driver is god's gift to racing and needs tyres that keep up with his awesome speed. But if said driver wins they will love the lift and coast brought on by some other tech.

 

Realistically do I care about diffusers, ERS/KERS, how they manage to burn 30-50% less fuel per race, how turning vane  #93849 creates 0,0002 more points of downforce? No. Fundamentally I care about F1 being about the pursuit of outright speed and dislike "tech" that goes some different way, even if the marketing dudes love how it looks on their next ad.

[SenorSjon]

In F1 terms, I'm a child of the early 2000's when every weekend, teams would bring new aero components, engines, fuels and practically built special cars just for qualifying. I loved this madness, but I'm being realistic enough to see that it couldn't go on forever. The racing today is way, way better than ten years ago, and that's what counts for me. Technology is imporant and I would definitely stop watching if F1 became a spec series, but I feel the current situation is an okayish compromise. In-season development and testing should be opened up a bit though, and could easily be financed for the smaller teams via fairer distribution of the TV money.

Ironically, the "everything used to be better"-brigade who argue against today's cars are usually the same people who cry about the "horrible sound" of the new power units and want to go back to V8's, when in fact these new engines represent today what the development races were to F1 back then: genuine cutting edge technology. With all the restrictions in mind (namely fuel flow/consumption and required reliability), these power units are truly amazing.

 

 

There is nothing genuine about thes new engines Power Units. Read the regulations about them and almost everything has been fixed beforehand. Block angle, cilinders, size of pistons, etc. 

 

Ten years ago we just witnessed the most powerfull F1 cars the world has ever seen and it has not been seen since. 2005 fell apart with the tire rules (Michelin had a Mercedeslike advantage over Bridgestone) and in 2006 the 'second amputation' started with the V8 (first was the obligation to use a V10). Cue in rev limits, testing banishment, cheesecake tires and the whole '09-present ugly car rulesets.

 

For cutting edge technology I turn to LMP1. Multiple engine configurations and different ways of regenerating it.

[RealRacing]

IMO F1 should be about the racing primarily. I'm sure there are more efficient and effective ways of doing R & D for the automotive industry without having to bore people who want to see a sport, a competition, a show. The deployment of technology should not eclipse the main purpose of a sport but aid it. So, for example, if for ERS to function properly the brakes this year take away directness between the driver and the car, it should not be a tech feature of racing cars, it should be tested and developed at the respective manufacturers' test tracks and labs where salivating engineers could watch screens showing every Watt saved. How many of you give a s**t about the "Fuel Used" display during GPs? Which threads in this forum get more responses, the vs threads or the tech threads? It's time to separate F1 as a sport and as a glorified testing ground that is not even that relevant to street cars.

Edited by RealRacing, 18 November 2014 - 18:16.

[HeadFirst]

Although I understand much of the tech and do find it somewhat interesting, it is the racing and the WDC that holds the greatest interest for me. For that reason I would not mind some further standardization of chassis and suspension components, though not to the extent of IndyCar. 

[phoenix101]

The poll doesn't address the central issue: What is technology (from a fan's perspective)?

 

From an audience's perspective, technology has been dead in F1 for a long time. The only "technology" audiences can access is tech that stimulates the senses. We can hear the difference between V6 and V8. Most of us can hear the difference between forced induction and natural aspiration. We can see variance in aerodyanmic designs, and we can see one car pull away from another car during the race. We can see the driver working in the cockpit, and we can get a feel for what kind of driving characteristics the car has based upon how hard the driver works. We can hear how long or short the shift times are and how rapidly the engine gathers speed or decelerates.

 

For the most part, all of the technology is long gone from the standpoint of the fans. We got nose cone design back, and we boffins can read race mags to gain access to other minor changes, but, for the most part, its just a chorus of identical V6 engine notes emanating from cars that are all very similarly shaped. Only 3 companies supply power-units, the cars are all quite similar to drive (from our perspective). It's like a symphony comprised of 100 cellos. What's the point?

 

If F1 doesn't bring back variation, it has nothing to offer. Every team has a different budget, different drivers, different engineering philosophies and different goals. They will never be happy doing things one way, and spec components have to be limited as much as possible.

 

Just set a maximum fuel flow limit and maximum fuel tank size. If the manufacturers want hybrid systems, let them fight amongst themselves as to the common specifications for hybrid systems, and then adjust the fuel flow and tank size to achieve some equivalency. If necessary, establish maximum displacement regulations and maximum v-angle. Not sure about ECU, but it will be less critical if mechanical variation is allowed.

 

So many teams will want to participate in F1 that they will spill into GP2. GP2 can be liberalized, and replace the defunct F2 championship. The FIA will have a minor league for teams and constructors, as well as drivers. If the GP2/F2 rules are good, too many teams will want to participate in GP2/F2 and national championships will be started.

[uffen]

The technology arms races is absolutely necessary for F1, it's half of it's identity, with the other half being the drivers and their win at all cost approach.

 

Take away the tech the teams lose their identity entirely, the competition between teams loses a lot of its meaning and we are left with guys going around in circles for no apparent reason.

Sorry to get into this late, but what has technology got to do with, say, the Red Bull team? Williams? Force India? Sauber? They use technology, to an extent, but unless you make your own engine, gearbox, electronics, etc. the technology arms race is just a source of $ outlay. So, for some it may be necessary.

Racing is largely going around for no reason other than entertainment. F1 is the top rung of a formula series, the technology is a side show due to the $ spent. I used to love the technology and was anxious to see it on a new F1 car. Now I know that at the current rate it just ruins the racing, the series and the appreciation I get from what the drivers do.

[chipmcdonald]

I'm leaning towards that they should just go in the other direction, towards Indycar, and race.

I do not want to hear about economic crisis and teams that can not afford to race, or pay the staff no more.

 

 

 It doesn't have to be this way.  If the only rules were "analog controls, you can't exceed 210 mph, 5Gs" with an FIA approved survival cell, you would have built in diminishing returns and it would be much better.  

While I think it's a lie that The Powers That Be really want to control costs, the intellectual premise of the regulations are based on the idea of keeping the cars from exceeding safe limits.   No matter the regs, you still end up with effectively the same result.  That is a ridiculous way of solving the "problem" of excess speed.  In turn it's ridiculously expensive.

[Risil]

Much like the stock market or the works of James Joyce, I don't, and I do.

[PlatenGlass]

Technology may be important for F1, but then is F1 important for us? For example, if there was a rival series that had spec cars and a similar level of drivers, we'd see which driver in that series was the best. I think that would make a better pinnacle of motorsport even if we wouldn't call it F1. I know some people like the whole thing of not knowing who's really the best and the excitement of two new team-mates matching up, but would you accept that in any other sport? What if success in tennis was largely determined by brand of tennis racket and each brand only had a handful of players? It would be stupid. We only accept it in motor "sport" because it's always been that way.

 

I think the technology side would be interesting if that's all it was. High-technology cars with robot drivers. In addition to that we a series of have spec cars with human drivers. Completely separate from each other. But a bit of one and a bit of the other - it's just an arbitrary compromise. That's what F1 is.

[Burtros]

If the technology is so great, so important to F1, surely this year should be one of the pinnacle years of the sport? An orgy of new tech has arrived. Wheres the love we all have for it supposedly? Have the majority of F1 fans now moved on and value excitement? How exciting is modern technology compared to old - the arrival of wings was incredible and dramatically changed the cars look. Some new batteries we cant see or hear in modern times... well, are they the key ingredient to most people? Im not sure anymore.

 

I think its an interesting question to ask in a thread like this.

 

My own opinion for what its worth. Im a big fan of the technology, I love turbos and the power delivery, the surge of boost. It makes up some way for the loss of the sound. Overall though, while I think its key to the sport I dont want teams going bust because of the cost, for example.

Edited by Burtros, 18 November 2014 - 21:16.

[RealRacing]

Technology may be important for F1, but then is F1 important for us? For example, if there was a rival series that had spec cars and a similar level of drivers, we'd see which driver in that series was the best. I think that would make a better pinnacle of motorsport even if we wouldn't call it F1. I know some people like the whole thing of not knowing who's really the best and the excitement of two new team-mates matching up, but would you accept that in any other sport? What if success in tennis was largely determined by brand of tennis racket and each brand only had a handful of players? It would be stupid. We only accept it in motor "sport" because it's always been that way.

 

I think the technology side would be interesting if that's all it was. High-technology cars with robot drivers. In addition to that we a series of have spec cars with human drivers. Completely separate from each other. But a bit of one and a bit of the other - it's just an arbitrary compromise. That's what F1 is.

Although I am leaning more towards the spec-series side, what you mention here does give me food for thought. What would happen if a spec series turned F1 into something similar to tennis? Sure I enjoy the occasional Feferer-Nadal-Djokovic match combinations but it does get boring that after a while it´s mostly the same guys winning. On the other side of the coin, a spec F1 would offer more possibilities of variation (compared to tennis and other more standardized sports) given the different circuits and higher impact of mechanical and other types of failures. So, in a way, I wouldn't mind if, for example,  Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso won most of the races and championships if there was great racing between them. Furthermore, the way things are now, I believe a spec series would produce better racing and closer, more interesting championships than Formula Red Bull or Formula Mercedes of the last years. 

 

As far as your last idea is concerned, I see that as a good alternative too: a series that highlights technlogy with robots or good enough drivers geared at techies and possibly fans that are team-centered and another with spec or more-similar cars where driver talent is the main differentiator. The compromise that has been created is doing an increasingly worse job at satisfying these two groups.

[scheivlak]

Technology may be important for F1, but then is F1 important for us? For example, if there was a rival series that had spec cars and a similar level of drivers, we'd see which driver in that series was the best. I think that would make a better pinnacle of motorsport even if we wouldn't call it F1. I know some people like the whole thing of not knowing who's really the best and the excitement of two new team-mates matching up, but would you accept that in any other sport? What if success in tennis was largely determined by brand of tennis racket and each brand only had a handful of players? It would be stupid. We only accept it in motor "sport" because it's always been that way.

 

I think the technology side would be interesting if that's all it was. High-technology cars with robot drivers. In addition to that we a series of have spec cars with human drivers. Completely separate from each other. But a bit of one and a bit of the other - it's just an arbitrary compromise. That's what F1 is.

There is a kind-of-rival-series with spec cars and a pretty good level of drivers. That's Indycar.

 

I like it. The racing is close and unpredictable.

 

But to me it's nowhere near F1 and would still be nowhere near if the driver level would rise to the same level of F1. That it's slower (at least on street circuits) is a minor reason. First and foremost it's because it is spec. For me F1 should be always be about technical competition and technical innovation. That why I love the fact that we have a new formula this year, even though it comes with a lot of labor pains. And it's a good thing that the formula is a hybrid formula because -together with electric power-  things like that will be the future of the industry as a whole. Anything else will sooner or later be just a dead end.

 

What is wrong is certainly the distribution of money. That is what blocks a more free, challenging and open competition. Of course some rules and regulations (tyres!) are just too rigid and artificial as well but they are also a side effect of the bad political/economic management of the sport.

 

F1 is still the pinnacle for me both because of the level of driving and the level of technology. It is partly also the pinnacle because -for a driver-  it's where the most money can be made. But the current business model is simply no longer sustainable. That has to change, otherwise it will crash completely within just a few years. And it will take a lot with it in its downfall......

Edited by scheivlak, 18 November 2014 - 22:17.

[ElMatador]

My dream scenario for F1 is for there to be 7 teams with 3 drivers each, amounting a total of 21 drivers.

 

Add more importance to the feeder series, reduce the number of teams, make it an exclusive series where war on the engineering level and track level is constant, so that we don't ever see a situation like Vettel winning 4 the way he did , ever again. Constant competition between the world's top drivers. None of this Caterham, Marussia BS. 

[FerrariV12]

The old technology or drivers debate...can't it be both?

 

A spec series (and to say there's plenty of them about already is a massive understatement) I don't find as interesting. A hypothetical championship with high tech robot cars I wouldn't find as intriguing either (although admittedly it'd be a nice and unique experiment). It's the mix of the two, not always knowing for certain who is the best of each, that I've always found interesting. New technology that might require a different technique to drive and seeing what drivers adapt best, drivers being able to work their way into better cars in the way that professional footballers (or any other players in a team sport) try and work their way into better teams to show their talents, it's all part of the story.

 

It's worked for the first 120 years of the sport anyway...

[RealRacing]

But to me it's nowhere near F1 and would still be nowhere near if the driver level would rise to the same level of F1. That it's slower (at least on street circuits) is a minor reason. First and foremost it's because it is spec. For me F1 should be always be about technical competition and technical innovation. That why I love the fact that we have a new formula this year, even though it comes with a lot of labor pains. And it's a good thing that the formula is a hybrid formula because -together with electric power-  things like that will be the future of the industry as a whole. Anything else will sooner or later be just a dead end.

See that's where I think that kind of thinking is flawed; why do people assume that F1 and the auto industry MUST be related? F1 cars can't be farther away from a road car and there are series that are much closer to road cars and constitute better testing beds that F1 will ever be. To play devil's advocate using extreme examples (which doesn't mean I either endorse or like these activities): what relevance do bullfights or horse races have to the modern world? What do boxing  or MMF contribute to the activities and development of 21st century human beings?  Why should F1 be any different? Auto racing is a passion, and a race is a way of determining who's the most talented human being at controlling a machine called racing car. Why does it have to contribute anything to road cars, wich are completely different machines used for a completely different purpose? I think people are having a difficult time differentiating between two very disimilar things: one is F1 having to include technology that is road relevant and another F1 being allowed to develop technology that will give a team an advantage IN F1 RACING. The first one can damage, and I think it is, damaging the sporting and racing aspect of F1, and the other has the potential to greatly improve it.  But none of them is necessary or should be mandatory if it negatively affects the racing aspect of F1.

[scheivlak]

See that's where I think that kind of thinking is flawed; why do people assume that F1 and the auto industry MUST be related? F1 cars can't be farther away from a road car and there are series that are much closer to road cars and constitute better testing beds that F1 will ever be. 

I don't say that F1 cars and road cars have to be related. 

 

I just say engine development is a very important part of the F1 heritage and important for the future and existence of F1 as well. And I think the only way F1 can assert itself these days as the pinnacle of motorsport is that F1 has to be relevant and interesting in some way for engine manufacturers. Without them, we would really end up in something close to a spec formula.

 

What makes F1 far more interesting to me these days is that it is a cutting edge technology where top manufacturers invest in - like Mercedes, Renault and Honda next year. F1 is seriously ill, but the fact that Mercedes, Renault and Honda put some serious money in it offers some chance of survival. Renault told us already in 2011 that they would leave if the F1 wouldn´t change to a hybrid formula and I think that would count for Mercedes as well. And Honda would never have entered F1 if it had not changed in a hybrid formula.

Edited by scheivlak, 18 November 2014 - 23:50.

[pingu666]

if you look back at the older cars, they look so simple to todays cars, in terms of aero complexity

 

id prefer more engine.kers/ers dev to twiddly tedious front wings

[BullHead]

It's important, it's what makes it the pinnacle. It's the added dimension that other series don't necessarily have (WEC aside). It can be taken or left as far as the spectator is concerned, but is what makes it 'special', alongside the speed and racing. Both of them are important too.

[Nathan]

Where is the balance?

 

Almost every other race series is going towards spec components, so F1 can afford to back away from pure prototypes a bit.

 

The question is, what is the value of the technology you want to see pushed?  These tech races are what kills small teams because it makes competing too expensive.  So what is it worth ?  Do you want 8 teams racing 100% prototype cars, 12 teams racing 70% prototype cars, a mixture of new and used?  Does that 30% matter a huge amount?  Do custom dashboards equate to increased audiences? Makes it more interesting, but is it worth the cost to do?  How many teams can afford to run a wind tunnel program and an active suspension program and a whatever else you want them to do?  It use to be many Grand Prix components were virtually spec because almost everyone tied a Cosworth to a Hewland. Who bitched?

Edited by Nathan, 18 November 2014 - 23:50.

[scheivlak]

 

The question is, what is the value of the technology you want to see pushed?  These tech races are what kills small teams because it makes competing too expensive.  

No, it´s not tech development as such. It´s you, Bernie - making the rich richer while keeping the poor poor.

 

 

  It use to be many Grand Prix components were virtually spec because almost everyone tied a Cosworth to a Hewland. Who bitched?

Me 

 

Some people (mostly British) are still glowing about the mid seventies but I found it all rather bare and almost lost interest because it almost became Formula Ford. Thank heavens for Ferrari and even more Renault daring to experiment with a turbo engine where everybody laughed about at first. 

[Nathan]

Scheivlak, even if the money was distributed squarely there would still be a wide funding gap.  Teams like Caterham and Marussia would be in the position Force India and Sauber are now.

 

A for "the poor"...you do remember 4 of the 5 teams that went broke, or are near broke ,are owned by billionaires, right?

 

$25 million puts you at or near the front in Indycar or NASCAR

 

$100 million gives you a shot at winning Le Mans

 

$300 million to have a consistent shot in Formula-1?

 

There is a problem there...somewhere...

 

Have all the jazzy tech you want, but you have to understand the side effect to that will be less viable F1 teams, or the need to sell customer cars.

Edited by Nathan, 19 November 2014 - 00:20.

[phoenix101]

 It doesn't have to be this way.  If the only rules were "analog controls, you can't exceed 210 mph, 5Gs" with an FIA approved survival cell, you would have built in diminishing returns and it would be much better.  

While I think it's a lie that The Powers That Be really want to control costs, the intellectual premise of the regulations are based on the idea of keeping the cars from exceeding safe limits.   No matter the regs, you still end up with effectively the same result.  That is a ridiculous way of solving the "problem" of excess speed.  In turn it's ridiculously expensive.

 

Top speed limit is good, but g-force limitation would make racing very difficult, and without advanced electronic controls, the drivers would go over the limit during braking, cornering and accelerating (possibly). They could probably do aero balancing like DTM which would allow more aero design freedom.

[Gorma]

I hate when the poll options are like this. I can't answer due to the secondary assumptions that don't necessarily go with the first one.

 

I think technology is very important/quite important, but it's not the (biggest/only) reason why I follow F1 and I won't stop following F1 if became more spec. Actually I wouldn't mind it going more spec.

[ViMaMo]

Other series may become as fast as F1 if they start to spec the vehicle. But finding the right balance is important. It might just help lower costs and help lower tier teams. Though not at the cost of losing the position of being the fastest cars around a track.

[SmallHorsey]

What the hell are the fuel flow rules, anyway? Can someone please explain them to me? Actually, don't bother, I don't give a stuff. I may be wrong but they just seem like a pointless, complicated and unnecessary addition to F1 that adds bugger all to the spectacle.

[rhukkas]

Technology may be important for F1, but then is F1 important for us? For example, if there was a rival series that had spec cars and a similar level of drivers, we'd see which driver in that series was the best. I think that would make a better pinnacle of motorsport even if we wouldn't call it F1. I know some people like the whole thing of not knowing who's really the best and the excitement of two new team-mates matching up, but would you accept that in any other sport? What if success in tennis was largely determined by brand of tennis racket and each brand only had a handful of players? It would be stupid. We only accept it in motor "sport" because it's always been that way.

I think the technology side would be interesting if that's all it was. High-technology cars with robot drivers. In addition to that we a series of have spec cars with human drivers. Completely separate from each other. But a bit of one and a bit of the other - it's just an arbitrary compromise. That's what F1 is.

Outside of F1 motorsprt is becoming more standardised. Duller, less interesting and less popular.

[king_crud]

 

I think the technology side would be interesting if that's all it was. High-technology cars with robot drivers. In addition to that we a series of have spec cars with human drivers. Completely separate from each other. But a bit of one and a bit of the other - it's just an arbitrary compromise. That's what F1 is.

 

We already had robot cars, it was called Robot Wars, and it was AMAZING! F1 need more inspiration from Robot Wars: a McLaren with a bazooka, a Williams with a flamethrower, a Sauber with a swiss army knife attachment thing that removes stones from wheel rims and a giant toothpick

[Mercedestorque1]

F1 is all about technological advances and innovations thats why we love it!

[ardbeg]

F1 is all about technological advances and innovations thats why we love it!

Any particular technological advances and innovations from the last years that comes to your mind?

[ardbeg]

I hate when the poll options are like this. I can't answer due to the secondary assumptions that don't necessarily go with the first one.

 

I think technology is very important/quite important, but it's not the (biggest/only) reason why I follow F1 and I won't stop following F1 if became more spec. Actually I wouldn't mind it going more spec.

What options would you like to have?

[PlatenGlass]

Although I am leaning more towards the spec-series side, what you mention here does give me food for thought. What would happen if a spec series turned F1 into something similar to tennis? Sure I enjoy the occasional Feferer-Nadal-Djokovic match combinations but it does get boring that after a while it´s mostly the same guys winning. On the other side of the coin, a spec F1 would offer more possibilities of variation (compared to tennis and other more standardized sports) given the different circuits and higher impact of mechanical and other types of failures. So, in a way, I wouldn't mind if, for example,  Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso won most of the races and championships if there was great racing between them. Furthermore, the way things are now, I believe a spec series would produce better racing and closer, more interesting championships than Formula Red Bull or Formula Mercedes of the last years.
 
As far as your last idea is concerned, I see that as a good alternative too: a series that highlights technlogy with robots or good enough drivers geared at techies and possibly fans that are team-centered and another with spec or more-similar cars where driver talent is the main differentiator. The compromise that has been created is doing an increasingly worse job at satisfying these two groups.

Different sports have different levels of predictability, and my hunch would be that motor racing wouldn't have quite the three-person domination as tennis, which I think you probably agree with. Even tennis hasn't in the past. But with tennis, every match is head-to-head over a long match, so it's likely the better player will win out. But with motor racing little things can make a much bigger difference. And we've had several period of dominance in F1 over the years and at least with drivers in the same cars, we'd be able to appreciate that it's the best driver doing the best job. And long-term statistics of the top drivers would have much more meaning than they do now.

Most of you must have heard this, because I have hundreds of times - people who aren't F1 fans often say they don't think it's a proper sport because it's down to who has the best car. And to be honest, I find it hard to disagree with them.

[scheivlak]

Scheivlak, even if the money was distributed squarely there would still be a wide funding gap.  Teams like Caterham and Marussia would be in the position Force India and Sauber are now.

 

A for "the poor"...you do remember 4 of the 5 teams that went broke, or are near broke ,are owned by billionaires, right?

 

$25 million puts you at or near the front in Indycar or NASCAR

 

$100 million gives you a shot at winning Le Mans

 

$300 million to have a consistent shot in Formula-1?

 

There is a problem there...somewhere...

 

Have all the jazzy tech you want, but you have to understand the side effect to that will be less viable F1 teams, or the need to sell customer cars.

And so you make it still more difficult for teams like Force India, Lotus (4th in 2012, 4th in 2013!) to keep up with non-performing teams that you shower with bucks (like Ferrari) and keep, say, 650 million bucks every year all for yourself - just to show them the door.

 

OK.......

[RealRacing]

Different sports have different levels of predictability, and my hunch would be that motor racing wouldn't have quite the three-person domination as tennis, which I think you probably agree with. Even tennis hasn't in the past. But with tennis, every match is head-to-head over a long match, so it's likely the better player will win out. But with motor racing little things can make a much bigger difference. And we've had several period of dominance in F1 over the years and at least with drivers in the same cars, we'd be able to appreciate that it's the best driver doing the best job. And long-term statistics of the top drivers would have much more meaning than they do now.

Most of you must have heard this, because I have hundreds of times - people who aren't F1 fans often say they don't think it's a proper sport because it's down to who has the best car. And to be honest, I find it hard to disagree with them.

I agree. I was playing devil's advocate with the idea of a spec series but in reality I think I would like it better than the present F1. And you are right, there are more variables in F1 (circuits, driver ability at different circuits, failures, weather, and others) that would make races fought by the same drivers much more interesting than tennis matches between the same players. I guess a good comparison would be a season where different teams had cars that were close: 1990 comes to mind with Senna in the McLaren and Prost in the Ferrari and it was awesome. Imagine Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso, Kimi with very similar cars. That would be amazing.

[chipmcdonald]

Top speed limit is good, but g-force limitation would make racing very difficult, and without advanced electronic controls, the drivers would go over the limit during braking, cornering and accelerating (possibly). They could probably do aero balancing like DTM which would allow more aero design freedom.

 

I disagree, it would be easy enough to design into the engine management system, and with brakes if it becomes an issue you just put a valve in the master cylinder, paint the braking zone, make the discs smaller - certainly cheaper and easier than making an abstruse technical jungle to achieve the same outcome.  

 

5G acceleration would be difficult, but I would love to see engineering bent on maximizing the delta for G, it would look cool and and create new excitement on the exits of turns.  Instead of things being just about one opportunity at one corner in a braking zone, that alone would create much more variability. 

 

Let them run 1,500 hp - can't use it over 220 - straight line safety would not change, but they can tear up to it off a corner as fast as they want to try.  I'd call that entertainment...