95 replies to this topic

[Murl]

Team gets two lights on the dash that they can control. The first is "Retire to Pit Box", and the second is "Retire Immediately". To prevent coded messages, the signal for either is transmitted to timing and scoring, and the car is no longer scored once either signal is sent.

 

 

So simple.

 

All this driver safety talk is so much bullshit.

Give the teams a killswitch if the are so worried.

 

Imagine, how many times a season would it be used, perhaps once a decade?

[Beamer]

With todays policies Nigel Mansell v's piquet would have been neutralised and that Iconic  chase down is still replayed on the block. Not quite as good as Piquets rally type power slide pass on Senna in Hungary 86... that was real driver racing:)

Anything that can come close gets my vote

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=AMKPJlV-srE

I fail to see how this relates to drivers determining their own strategy..... 

Edited by Beamer, 19 November 2015 - 09:13.

[Ali_G]

The first move would be to properly remove all driver aids. Semi auto gearboxes need to go.

[Paco]

Watch Indycar then.. F1 isn't just about the drivers and more about the team and manufacturer. Has been that way for decades. Zero reason to change it. That said, Ferrari's schumi really caused a momentual shift into how teams treat drivers and also this concept locking in the driver after who's leading at x part of the race or preferential treatment for the driving in front at a gp. I see zero reason why the driving trailing can't change up and so something different to leap frog..

I also get the idea from a team politics to avoid the appearance of favorite if you are going to maintain a no 1 policy..

That said, in the interest of fairness, on track action and really giving both driver a chance at winning... His idea of holding the line and not passing you teammate at x point in the race is utter crap, I agree, MGP especially at this point in the season should let each side of the garage do as they please.

[Nathan]

Why would teams, who put up all the risk and money, let the greed and selfishness of drivers put their interests ahead of their own?

[warp]

Why would teams, who put up all the risk and money, let the greed and selfishness of drivers put their interests ahead of their own?

 

If F1 would switch to that approach, then drivers would be the ones getting the sponsors and money. So the more liked driver would get the best sponsors and best racing material.

[August]

Why would teams, who put up all the risk and money, let the greed and selfishness of drivers put their interests ahead of their own?

 

If they thought that would provide a better show, attracting more people and thus more sponsors.

[pdac]

Why would teams, who put up all the risk and money, let the greed and selfishness of drivers put their interests ahead of their own?

 

If it were to change, though, they'd be free to decide themselves whether they wanted to put up the money for it. I suspect a lot would.

[KnucklesAgain]

I'd like to extend a fukc you very much to Toto then. These people actually still believe fans are secondary in F1...

 

Why? This was clearly in the context of the F1 Merc currently competes in, and Toto's opinion that the driver deciding his own strategy in this  F1 would automatically lose if Merc allowed.

 

This has **** all to do with the greater question of removing driving aids in F1 and the fan appeal. Obviously the situation Toto is talking about would not even exist in that scenario. He even says, "As a fan I can understand, absolutely."

[Nathan]

Warp, should success in racing be determined by your popularity?

 

August, I suspect they know it won't do that.

 

Pdac, only Maldonado can put up that kind of cash.

 

Teams and sponsors are hurt when teammates go to war.

[RealRacing]

Why? This was clearly in the context of the F1 Merc currently competes in, and Toto's opinion that the driver deciding his own strategy in this  F1 would automatically lose if Merc allowed.

 

This has **** all to do with the greater question of removing driving aids in F1 and the fan appeal. Obviously the situation Toto is talking about would not even exist in that scenario. He even says, "As a fan I can understand, absolutely."

Ok, you are going to have to either re-write or explain your first sentence. But from what I could understand, my (albeit a bit guessed) reply would be: the championships are decided, he might as well could have let them race (i.e., try something different to see if you can pass your teammate, part of the definition of racing).

 

If you check the title of the thread, it´s about giving protagonism back to the drivers. Removing driver aids, pit to car comm, giving them better tyres, allowing more use of fuel, decrease the importance of aero, etc. etc., are all elements of that, so I think they are pretty much related. The situation Toto is talking about would IMO, sadly, still fight to exist in that scenario as there's nothing more important in F1 these days as the bottom line of manufacturers.

 

So OK, maybe I should have said f********ck you Toto for, with your remarks, being the representative of all that's currently wrong in F1. Better?

[Nathan]

Isn't conserving fuel and tires a driver skill?

I'm not so sure this is about the bottom line as much as preserving a 1-2 finish and preventing inter team disasters.  Why should Mercedes suffer because their drivers tangle?

[KnucklesAgain]

Ok, you are going to have to either re-write or explain your first sentence. But from what I could understand, my (albeit a bit guessed) reply would be: the championships are decided, he might as well could have let them race (i.e., try something different to see if you can pass your teammate, part of the definition of racing).

 

If you check the title of the thread, it´s about giving protagonism back to the drivers. Removing driver aids, pit to car comm, giving them better tyres, allowing more use of fuel, decrease the importance of aero, etc. etc., are all elements of that, so I think they are pretty much related. The situation Toto is talking about would IMO, sadly, still fight to exist in that scenario as there's nothing more important in F1 these days as the bottom line of manufacturers.

 

So OK, maybe I should have said f********ck you Toto for, with your remarks, being the representative of all that's currently wrong in F1. Better?

 

What I mean is that IMO Toto was saying, in nicer words, that Hamilton is being an idiot if he thinks that he knows better than the strategist - when everybody else is using a strategist. It would be kind of like a driver rejecting wings. I don't think this necessarily means opposition on Toto's part against taking such aids away from ALL drivers by a rule change.

 

I agree mostly with that you wrote about such a rule change. And yes, the thread title is about that, and even in your OP I thought you used the article to illustrate how much these aids contribute to drivers' performance in modern F1, which I thought was a totally valid use of the article.  And indeed this balance may be cause for concern (without getting into the finer points here).  It's just that in the post I replied to you this changed to something I disagreed with, see above.

 

And regarding the championships being decided and all, I agree that Merc could let them race as well as do whatever stupid thing they want to do (it may calm Ham down if he learned the hard way what Toto believes he would). On the other hand, this is Mercedes Benz, with all that comes with it - a history, a certain culture of doing things, and an image to balance. So maybe we shouldn't expect too "crazy" things from them (have you been to Stuttgart? ).

[TheCaptain]

Who here is honestly more interested in the constructors championship than the drivers one?    I'm sure there will be some but to most it's the human element that makes sport exciting.    Let's face it, if the constructors could have a flawless robot driving their cars they would, and there would be zero interest in the races - the only interest would be from the technical side of building the machines.

 

What makes exciting racing?    Mistakes.    In days gone when drivers would miss gears, it lead to overtaking.    We don't want people taking the optimum strategy every time.    All the best races are when the rain comes and drivers have to think for themselves because the simulations all go out the window, and you get people making the wrong and right choices, mixing things up, and rewarding those who got it right.      

 

It's one way of mixing things up without adding anything superficial.   

 

Sure the constructor that's currently best won't like it as it will mean they won't be able to optimise their advantage, but it's still a level playing field.    

[alframsey]

Drivers have never had much control over strategy but I think Merc take it to another level, I never remember two drivers having strategy controlled so tightly. Unless I am misremembering?

[pdac]

Warp, should success in racing be determined by your popularity?

 

August, I suspect they know it won't do that.

 

Pdac, only Maldonado can put up that kind of cash.

 

Teams and sponsors are hurt when teammates go to war.

 

I think I didn't make myself clear. If the system were to change such that it was accepted that drivers would have more freedom to choose their strategy then those team owners who put up the money would still be free to choose if they wanted to continue in F1 or whether it was not for them. My suggestion was that I think most would be happy to continue in that environment.

[warp]

Warp, should success in racing be determined by your popularity?

 

No. Being popular would give you more fans, sponsors, better racing material if we are talking individual entries. 

 

That was my point. That individual entries would bring in another string of issues. I don't know if for better or worst, just that is not a perfect solution, much as what we have now.

 

I don't have a problem with Constructors championship. I'm attracted to who makes the best car too, but I'm a fan of all type of techie bits and I hate how teams are constrained within the current regulations. I like how F1 rewards a driver and a team.

 

EDIT... I just would like to see closer competition amongst teams.

Edited by warp, 20 November 2015 - 00:31.

[pdac]

I understand and can accept that the teams must have the ultimate say in strategy WHILE THE CHAMPIONSHIP IS UNDECIDED. But once Mercedes secured both WCC and WDC they should have opted to let the drivers have a bit more say.

[bub]

Why would teams, who put up all the risk and money, let the greed and selfishness of drivers put their interests ahead of their own?

1. The drivers put up risk too. They also put in a pretty important contribution by being the ones who actually race the cars. The driver wouldn't be much without a team and a team wouldn't be much without a driver.

2. That sefishness and greed is just a natural part of being a racing driver.

3. The drivers naturally want to be allowed to race (and strategy is a part of that) but the fans want that too and the fans are quite important imo.

[Kalmake]

1. If a driver is important enough, he can negotiate a contract that gives him full freedom on strategy.

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

Making drivers responsible for all the actions during the race would be very interesting. During the practice sessions, the drivers should train their feel for the car, tyres, track conditions and laptimes. Then the drivers should be briefed about possible race strategies.

 

On raceday however, the driver has to decide what to do.

 

The only information he gets from his steering wheel:

- current position

- current lap and % of race distance completed

- % of fuel consumed (driver has to decide when to lift and coast)

- alarm if front or rear brake temps are too high (but no exact temperature, driver has to decide if he is easier on the brake or changes brake balance to get back to the normal range)

- alarm if engine or oil temps are too high (but no exact temperature, driver has to decide what to do to lower the temp)

 

What he can change via the steering wheel:

- brake balance

- engine mode (power level, fuel consumption)

- ERS regeneration and deploy mode (preparing an attack)

 

The driver does not know where the other cars on track are relative to him, other than what he sees with is eyes. No information from the pits via radio or pitboards. He is able to choose according to his feel and with the possible strategies in mind when to do his pitstops. It is done via the steering wheel where he sets "pit at lap X, new tyre compound Y" and sends this to his crew. The second driver of the team also has this possibility. When two drivers want to pit at the same lap, it is first come first serve.

 

The drivers do not know if there is rain approaching because of radar information from the teams, he again has to look at the sky, the track and his visor to decide if to pit and which tyre to choose.

 

It would bring in so much chaos, there would be so much to discuss after each race.

[maximilian]

Watch Indycar then.

 

Definitely doing that!    And Formula E.  Meanwhile, I've skipped a great lot of the F1GPs - certainly the days where I stay up/get up wee hours of the night to watch a Grand Prix are LONG over, and more and more I would rather do other things, such as going for a swim, instead of following a 2-hour borefest... only to come back to find yet another Merc 1-2 with Vettel in 3rd and Bottas in 4th when I come back (which seems to be how pretty much every race ends).  So glad I didn't watch!

[senna da silva]

What really disappointed me on Sunday and what has been said since is that Mercedes and Toto seem to think it is still important to ensure the get the results they want. What I think is that they have the WDC and WCC already and there focus should now be on helping F1 to retain the interest of the fans.

 

They had a perfect opportunity to show how much they value the sport on Sunday - it would have cost them nothing. Sadly, I guess, perhaps they did show how much they value the sport and it seemed to me to be **** the sport, **** the fans, we're only here for the business advantages it brings.

 

 To be fair to merc, they wanted to secure 2nd in the wdc for Nico. Now there is no excuse to let them go all out in Abu Dhabi.

[Nathan]

 

1. The drivers put up risk too. They also put in a pretty important contribution by being the ones who actually race the cars. The driver wouldn't be much without a team and a team wouldn't be much without a driver.

2. That sefishness and greed is just a natural part of being a racing driver.

3. The drivers naturally want to be allowed to race (and strategy is a part of that) but the fans want that too and the fans are quite important imo

 

1. Sure drivers put up physical risk, but the economic risk is not comparable.  The teams have to be concerned with staying in business, justifying the investments of sponsors.  Teams have literally thousands of drivers to choose from.

 

2. What about a team principle/owner?  Why is it OK for drivers to want the best for them, but not OK for the teams to want what is best for the team?  If this was say football, and one player was stealing the ball from his teammates so he can be the one to score, would that be acceptable?

 

3. Yup.  Of course, the fans must be use to this by now?  Reality is F1 has always been team first, because teams largely dictate which drivers can win.

 

 

My suggestion was that I think most would be happy to continue in that environment.

 

Yes, until driver greed starts affecting team results and finances.  Perhaps I don't remember the race in Brasil so well, but if I remember correctly Hamilton was denied a different strategy because it put 2nd place at risk.  If that was so, I feel Mercedes was justified.  If they are thirty-seconds ahead of third, then I agree with the majority here, so long as they can keep from taking each other out they should perhaps provide the option.

 

Mercedes also needs to consider the physiological aspect with Rosberg.

Edited by Nathan, 20 November 2015 - 16:16.

[August]

August, I suspect they know it won't do that.

I somehow have a feeling F1 is very reluctant to change. There are so many obvious things F1 should change, yet they aren't doing it. Maybe its dominant market position among motorsports makes it ignore how it could improve. Still, F1's TV ratings are in decline. It's a pity F1 doesn't have such a strong rival, it would force F1 to improve its product.

[RealRacing]

What I mean is that IMO Toto was saying, in nicer words, that Hamilton is being an idiot if he thinks that he knows better than the strategist - when everybody else is using a strategist. It would be kind of like a driver rejecting wings. I don't think this necessarily means opposition on Toto's part against taking such aids away from ALL drivers by a rule change.

 
I don't think they didn't want HAM to try his own strategy for efficiency reasons. IMO, they wanted to keep the status quo in the race, i.e., they were more afraid of HAM's strategy working and him passing ROS. It seems to me that giving drivers more control in all aspects would go against the very philosophy most of these teams, including and especially Mercedes as you say, embrace and kind of even demand from today's F1.

I agree mostly with that you wrote about such a rule change. And yes, the thread title is about that, and even in your OP I thought you used the article to illustrate how much these aids contribute to drivers' performance in modern F1, which I thought was a totally valid use of the article.  And indeed this balance may be cause for concern (without getting into the finer points here).  It's just that in the post I replied to you this changed to something I disagreed with, see above.

 
As said above, when I talked about making F1 more a driver's sport, I was talking about all aspects I mentioned: from technical aspects of cars to the level of decision making of the drivers.

And regarding the championships being decided and all, I agree that Merc could let them race as well as do whatever stupid thing they want to do (it may calm Ham down if he learned the hard way what Toto believes he would). On the other hand, this is Mercedes Benz, with all that comes with it - a history, a certain culture of doing things, and an image to balance. So maybe we shouldn't expect too "crazy" things from them (have you been to Stuttgart? ).

That's why I also think they would oppose any change in the category leading to anything other than processional domination that, they think, benefits their brand. Hence, my kind thanks to Toto and everyone in current F1 thinking like I believe he does.

[Treads]

Yes. The less the outcome is determined by the car, engine, and team, the better.

What you describe is not F1.

[Wuzak]

Don't know if it has been posted already.

 

http://www.jamesalle...nted-in-brazil/

 

James Allen explains why Mercedes didn't give Hamilton what he wanted.

[GTRacer]

Would letting Lewis do something different & having the outcome of the race decided by strategy/pit-pass really have been better than having the 2 of them fighting it out on track with the incentive been on the driver behind attacking to try an overtake?

Of course when you have tyres as sensitive as what we have now the chances of a driver been able to push hard behind another car to try & attack is not going to happen as the tyres start to overheat within a few laps & that kicks off the thermal degredation process that leads directly to the performance cliff.

 

 

Letting drivers pick there own strategy is all well & good in theory, However in practice its more often than not not really that ideal.

The drivers don't have the gaps for example, If you pit & come out in traffic your using your tyres more for the reasons above & losing time having to get past the traffic. You also may end up been more vulnerable if a safety car comes out & you make a decision to do something that cost's you.

Also its not as if what we have now with teams making strategy call's is anything new, Its been happening since pit boards were invented & teams have been having pre-race strategy meetings since pit stops started to become a strategy tool in the 80s. And its not as if F1 is the only series which this happens, In every racing category that has pit stops the team lead the strategy because they have a far better idea of whats happening in the race all through the field than the driver does.

 

 

All this talk of banning telemetry, team radio etc.. will change nothing other than put F1 behind a lot of other categories from a tech point of view & deprive the viewer of information that a lot of fans actually find informative.

I love watching the in-car video channel that features the telemetry, Seeing how different drivers play with the throttle in different corners, What gears they use in different corners & what speeds there taking.

And I love having access to the team radio, Listening to driver/team chatter on the pit lane channel & the bits we hear on TV & the F1 app is a benefit & not a negative & I've always loved it & feel we shoudl be hearing more of it. There was a bit during the mexico weekend on the pits feed with some really detailed discussion about handling & setup & it was awesome to hear.

[redreni]

What really disappointed me on Sunday and what has been said since is that Mercedes and Toto seem to think it is still important to ensure the get the results they want. What I think is that they have the WDC and WCC already and there focus should now be on helping F1 to retain the interest of the fans.

 

They had a perfect opportunity to show how much they value the sport on Sunday - it would have cost them nothing. Sadly, I guess, perhaps they did show how much they value the sport and it seemed to me to be **** the sport, **** the fans, we're only here for the business advantages it brings.

 

I don't blame them for being ruthless, optimising everything and making certain they are first and second. It's not all about the championship; race wins and podiums have value in and of themselves, and you need to capture as many of them as you can when you have the chance, because it won't always be the case.

 

I agree it's very dull at the front of the field, but the only outfit that is unequivocally not to blame for that is Mercedes. They've set the standard, and if other teams could reach a similar standard, we would have closer racing. I don't think it's up to Mercedes to adopt poorer strategies to manufacture excitement, at the risk of losing out to other teams who have done a worse job than them and are slower. Nor do I think it's up to the rulemakers to manufacture instantaneous excitement by levelling things up (i.e. rewarding failure and penalising success).

 

I think when you have close racing, it means more when it has come about as a result of genuine competition. This means you have to wait for it to happen naturally, which unfortunately involves looking a bit further down the field for the excitement at times.

[redreni]

Watch Indycar then.. F1 isn't just about the drivers and more about the team and manufacturer. Has been that way for decades. Zero reason to change it. That said, Ferrari's schumi really caused a momentual shift into how teams treat drivers and also this concept locking in the driver after who's leading at x part of the race or preferential treatment for the driving in front at a gp. I see zero reason why the driving trailing can't change up and so something different to leap frog..

I also get the idea from a team politics to avoid the appearance of favorite if you are going to maintain a no 1 policy..

That said, in the interest of fairness, on track action and really giving both driver a chance at winning... His idea of holding the line and not passing you teammate at x point in the race is utter crap, I agree, MGP especially at this point in the season should let each side of the garage do as they please.

 

Bolded part - I expect you would if you'd paid to put two of the cars on the grid. When a car behind you tries to leapfrog by undercutting, this forces you to pit earlier than you ideally would in order to defend (unless you think your opponent is pitting so early that h will run out of tyres at the end, in which case you may choose to allow the undercut and pit on the optimum lap). The right way to defend most undercut attempts is to cover them, but it means you're being forced away from the ideal strategy.

 

If a rival car is forcing you onto a slower strategy in order to defend track position, that's just one of those things you have to deal with. You can't do anything about what other teams do. If it's your own car, you can do something about it and so it's no surprise that it's an absolutely uniform rule, up and down the pit lane, that teams won't let drivers gain a position on their teammate by undercutting them. This isn't happening for "zero reason".

 

Also, each side of the garage has to work with a single pit box, so the idea that they should fight each other rather than cooperate is not only inconsistent with the fundamental structure of the sport, which is team-based, but also completely unworkable. This is the problem with this whole debate - we can argue until the cows come home about whether we would like F1 to be about drivers competing or about teams competing. It's a perfectly valid and interesting debate and I understand and respect those who take a different view to my own.

 

However, I think those who want it to be about drivers often fail to acknowledge what a radical change that would be from what it actually is at the moment. It's not realistic to expect teams to act in ways which harm their own interests without, at the very least, introducing extremely heavy regulation of every aspect of race operations, regulation of pre-race briefings between team personnel and their colleagues or, more realistically perhaps, a change to a teamless structure. 

[pdac]

 To be fair to merc, they wanted to secure 2nd in the wdc for Nico. Now there is no excuse to let them go all out in Abu Dhabi.

 

If that were the case, why did they not just order Hamilton to ensure that Nico got the win? Also, who really cares about 2nd anyway?

[pdac]

1. Sure drivers put up physical risk, but the economic risk is not comparable.  The teams have to be concerned with staying in business, justifying the investments of sponsors.  Teams have literally thousands of drivers to choose from.

 

2. What about a team principle/owner?  Why is it OK for drivers to want the best for them, but not OK for the teams to want what is best for the team?  If this was say football, and one player was stealing the ball from his teammates so he can be the one to score, would that be acceptable?

 

3. Yup.  Of course, the fans must be use to this by now?  Reality is F1 has always been team first, because teams largely dictate which drivers can win.

 

 

Yes, until driver greed starts affecting team results and finances.  Perhaps I don't remember the race in Brasil so well, but if I remember correctly Hamilton was denied a different strategy because it put 2nd place at risk.  If that was so, I feel Mercedes was justified.  If they are thirty-seconds ahead of third, then I agree with the majority here, so long as they can keep from taking each other out they should perhaps provide the option.

 

Mercedes also needs to consider the physiological aspect with Rosberg.

 

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. It's quite easy for team owners to give an amount of freedom but say to drivers that they will have the ultimate say if they abuse that freedom.

 

I agree that it would be nice for the team to give something to Rosberg now. But, personally, I think they should be open about it and tell Lewis that his season is now over and the team would like him to help Rosberg secure 2nd. And also, when asked by the press, the team should explain that this is their stragegy.

[pdac]

I don't blame them for being ruthless, optimising everything and making certain they are first and second. It's not all about the championship; race wins and podiums have value in and of themselves, and you need to capture as many of them as you can when you have the chance, because it won't always be the case.

 

 

I disagree in this case.

Edited by pdac, 21 November 2015 - 12:25.

[ardbeg]

F1 was never a drivers sport and it  will never be.

[Nathan]

 

Maybe its dominant market position among motorsports makes it ignore how it could improve. Still, F1's TV ratings are in decline. It's a pity F1 doesn't have such a strong rival, it would force F1 to improve its product.

 

So I guess I have to ask if things are really as bad for F1 as people profess?  Indy doesn't even make a dent in F1, yet it is far more 'driver' orientated and exciting, has a rather prestigious race, well qualified drivers, and could become more of a 'worldly' motorsport if it wanted to.  However, F1 drops 100 million viewers and people cry it's the end, yet how many seasons does it take for Indy to have 100 million TV viewers?  WEC is an even smaller fraction.

 

Sometimes I think most of the whine come from people relatively new to F1, enjoy F1, but expect it to become more of what they want it to be to further their interest.  F1's popularity is miles ahead of all other forms of motorsport, why mess with the recipe it has followed for 60+years?

 

How does F1 TV rating growth/decline (and even sponsorship) compare to other established forms like Indy, NASCAR, WRC etc.?  Maybe the decline isn't an F1 thing, maybe it is a motorsports thing?  I think even MotoGP is seeing a decline, and you don't get much more exciting racing than that.

Edited by Nathan, 21 November 2015 - 17:12.

[pizzalover]

"is it time to make f1 a drivers sport?"

 

Reverse order grids based on WDC positions would do it. Easy.

[LeClerc]

With todays policies Nigel Mansell v's piquet would have been neutralised and that Iconic  chase down is still replayed on the block. Not quite as good as Piquets rally type power slide pass on Senna in Hungary 86... that was real driver racing:)

Anything that can come close gets my vote

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=AMKPJlV-srE

 

The most important lesson to take from that video, is how close Piquet could stay with Senna through the parabolica. 

 

There lies the real problem with F1 today.

[Massa_f1]

F1 was never a drivers sport and it  will never be.

 

Agree, although I do think if it was a drivers sport it would attract new fans. 

[Wuzak]

Agree, although I do think if it was a drivers sport it would attract new fans. 

 

To truly be a "driver's sport" you would need to have completely spec cars, and probably without adjustment (so that the better teams can't get better performance).

[Nathan]

 

if it was a drivers sport it would attract new fans.

 

And how many fans that value the engineering exercise would it lose? I remember not so long ago there was a quasi-poll here, and the thread showed more members here pick a favourite team than they do a favourite driver.  There is far more indepth coverage of technical side of F1 than the driver.  How many F1 fans follow the feeder series that promote driver-first racing?

Edited by Nathan, 22 November 2015 - 00:11.

[August]

While watching NASCAR, I was just thinking how I like the American style. It's more driver-centered, something that appeals the big crowd. Still each car is a team effort, and teams have multiple cars, however the cars of same team race more independently from each other than in F1. I have to say I'd like that in F1, to see better competition between teammates.

[PoleSitter85]

To truly be a "driver's sport" you would need to have completely spec cars, and probably without adjustment (so that the better teams can't get better performance).

Why not go with my idea? Have a two tier championship, one for the drivers title using spec or near spec cars and a constructors title where anything is allowed within the guidelines.

It could be formatted in a couple of ways, say the first 10 races are for the constructors title and the last 10 for the drivers championship or they could have 20 races each with one race on a Saturday and the other on a Sunday?

[surbjits]

 

This is one of the disconnects Formula One suffers, many (like Toto) have lost sight of the simple fact that Formula One exists for the fans. Not the manufacturers and teams, not the rocks stars, not politicians, but ordinary working class Joes like you and me. If we did not watch, sponsors would have no reason to get involved, manufacturers would go elsewhere. It is that simple, it does not require a lengthy explanation.

 

And for the massive majority, we watch to see exciting action, and to see what the drivers do. The drivers, they are the point of the spear, the main attraction. So instead of shackling them with team politics and other crap, give them the tools to go racing and turn them loose. Because that's what we want to see, drivers competing against each other, and may the best man win.

 

you sure about that? who do you think sponsors like rolex are appealing to....

[Nathan]

 

Why not go with my idea? Have a two tier championship, one for the drivers title using spec or near spec cars and a constructors title where anything is allowed within the guidelines

 

What happens when a constructor car is inevitably faster than the spec?  Is your world champion driver going to be the guy always coming 7th and 8th?  Seems strange the top tier of motorsport makes a driver decide does he/she want to be a GP winner, or an F1 champ.

[PoleSitter85]

What happens when a constructor car is inevitably faster than the spec? Is your world champion driver going to be the guy always coming 7th and 8th? Seems strange the top tier of motorsport makes a driver decide does he/she want to be a GP winner, or an F1 champ.

Split it in 2 halves, say for the first 10 races driving customer cars the constructors title is decided and then have the final 10 races in spec cars fighting for the drivers title.