4068 replies to this topic

[Marklar]

Recently - also thanks to Mercedes and BMWs announcement to join the Formula E grid in the next couple of years - there are a lot discussions going on whether this might be a sign that F1 has to follow the future trends even more for its likely next engine formula in 2021. Even within the paddock opinions are split, illustrated by Andrew Benson and Mark Hughes.

 

Andrew Benson ‏@andrewbensonf1  Sep 28
Some won't like hearing it, but it's increasingly hard to see how the next F1 engine formula cannot be more hybrid/electric rather than less
 
Andrew Benson ‏@andrewbensonf1  Oct 4
Only one conclusion from all this: anyone pushing Formula 1 back to a big-capacity internal combustion engine is signing its death warrant

Some believe that Mercedes’ announcement that it has reserved an entry into Formula E from 2018 just underlines that Formula 1 should not relax its striving to remain relevant to where road car technology is going[...] Whether the automotive future is battery electric or fuel cell electric or a mix of the two, it’s also moving towards being driverless. That future is coming much faster than is commonly realised.
So? Well, it’s pretty obvious F1 can’t be following the automotive industry down that route. Driverless race cars with hydrogen fuel cell-powered electric motors? And who’s going to come and watch them? Why? The road car industry’s technology direction is soon about to snap itself away from anything that F1 – and indeed motor racing in general – can follow in any meaningful way. That being the case, looking to the future, F1 needs to be questioning why it should even be saddling itself to turbo hybrids that are failing to excite the fans.[...]
Beyond 2020, F1’s future probably needs to be loud, lairy and normally-aspirated. Sure, stick some energy recovery on from the brakes to the battery, try to keep those torque levels up. But if it’s no longer able to contribute, then let it be happy that it played its part contributing towards the common good and is now free to be itself once more. Would that result in F1 being perceived as socially unacceptable? Well, maybe it needs a certain outlaw rebellion spirit. And maybe with the right sort of environment and by allowing its characters not to be touched by the corporate brush, it could become the sort of arena that car manufacturers of the future will come to as sponsors, hoping that it can reflect some of that magic onto otherwise bland images. In just the same way as a computer company or drinks manufacturer might.

http://www.motorspor...-loud-and-lairy

 

The question is now: How exactly should the future of F1 look like in terms of its engine formula? I know that we had similar discussions a few times here, but given the most recent developments it could merrit its own thread.

[Rinehart]

The reason Mercedes have signed up of for FE is that its £10m a season which is an absolute drop in the ocean for them compared to F1 budgets.

So they'll do Formula E because it's relevant and extraordinarily cheap, whilst they'll do F1 because they can reach 500m eyeballs a weekend.

F1 doesn't need to be relevant at all - its the greatest myth out there. It just needs to be an awesome sporting spectacle. 

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

My dream formula which is of course highly unrealistic to be implemented:

 

- teams are completely free to choose the engine architecture and energy source

- batteries, gas, petrol, hydrogen or ... every basic energy type is allowed

- electric motor and/or ICE (NA or turbo, rotary or turbine) to drive the wheels

- 2 wheel drive or 4

- no race fuel limit, no fuel flow limit

- 520 kg minimum weight without driver

 

- 1000kW max power at the driven wheels measured with standardized FIA sensors

 

Let the teams find out what the best solution is instead of demanding "road-relevant" hybrid tech.

[teejay]

2.85l Turbo V8's running on methanol for everyone!

[FPV GTHO]

I'm wondering how long will they persist with 2WD? Is that something they feel they need to maintain as a link to the feeder series ladder, as well as a point of difference over LMP1?

[Henri Greuter]

I'm wondering how long will they persist with 2WD? Is that something they feel they need to maintain as a link to the feeder series ladder, as well as a point of difference over LMP1?

 

 

If you think about mechanical 4WD (PU-Power to Centerdif->fron&Rear axls-> differntials --> left & right wheel) :  forget about that. Such is a too complicated setup to integrate within the current type of monocoques thatn need to be as narrow as possible in the cockpit area and the undercut inder the leges ofte drivers above the tea tray as high as possible due to the holy grail of F1: downforce generated by aero.

 

Electro engines for the front wheels only, maybe.....

 

 

 

Henri

[Hati]

What it should be, a very powerful turbo engine without any hybrid crap that has to last only one race with enough fuel to really push the car to its limit. What it will be, something completely different.

[Kristian]

I'm sure if internet forums existed in the 1900s, people would have been up in arms about humans racing with artificial engines rather than horses - sound hideous, less beautiful, etc. 

 

Now we are at another transitionary point of motorsport. Racing has to follow the trends of the general car industry, and whether we like it or not, in time petrol engines are just going to be dinosaurs. To keep the manufacturers and sponsors interested in the sport, electrics and hybrids are the way forward. I can see in 10-15 years, once technology is perfected, F1 being completely electric. And probably damn fast. 

[Enzoluis]

I'm sure if internet forums existed in the 1900s, people would have been up in arms about humans racing with artificial engines rather than horses - sound hideous, less beautiful, etc. 

 

Now we are at another transitionary point of motorsport. Racing has to follow the trends of the general car industry, and whether we like it or not, in time petrol engines are just going to be dinosaurs. To keep the manufacturers and sponsors interested in the sport, electrics and hybrids are the way forward. I can see in 10-15 years, once technology is perfected, F1 being completely electric. And probably damn fast. 

 

Then take out the driver, as seems cars without driver is going to be the near future.

[myattitude]

I see F1 & FE concepts merging. The manufacturers want road relevance and that's the way it's going.

[minime]

I see F1 & FE concepts merging. The manufacturers want road relevance and that's the way it's going.

 

Absolutely, F1 is between a rock and a hard place, they can't retreat from the hybrid path and to follow that is to eventually be at the same place as FE. Every major car manufacturer is headed down a path of less ICE and more alternative energy and the ICE will be less relevant earlier than what was originally thought. Mind you the new keeper of the keys might have other ideas but it is hard to see what unless the whole thing does a U turn and that would cause a riot amongst the teams. You would have the heads of all the companies doing hand stands and threatening all sorts of stuff at a guess.

[Hati]

Since future is electric manufacturers can go to Formula E and ruin it with their oversized budgets. Then F1 could concentrate to what is important, racing.

[Kristian]

Then take out the driver, as seems cars without driver is going to be the near future.

 

Well then the sport element will be lost, so I don't think that will happen. 

 

Nobody pays to see chess computers play each other, even though they are technically superior to humans? 

[AustinF1]

The reason Mercedes have signed up of for FE is that its £10m a season which is an absolute drop in the ocean for them compared to F1 budgets.

So they'll do Formula E because it's relevant and extraordinarily cheap, whilst they'll do F1 because they can reach 500m eyeballs a weekend.

F1 doesn't need to be relevant at all - its the greatest myth out there. It just needs to be an awesome sporting spectacle. 

...and there have been rumors around for a few months now that Merc may leave F1 after 2017, having gotten out of it all that they can in the short term and leaving, potentially, on top.

 

Aren't Lewis and Nico only signed through 2017? I remember hearing that one hangup in Nico's negotiations was that they would only offer him a 1-year deal. Not saying they'll leave, but I can certainly see the logic if they did.

[quickndirty]

I'm sure if internet forums existed in the 1900s, people would have been up in arms about humans racing with artificial engines rather than horses - sound hideous, less beautiful, etc. 

 

Now we are at another transitionary point of motorsport. Racing has to follow the trends of the general car industry, and whether we like it or not, in time petrol engines are just going to be dinosaurs. To keep the manufacturers and sponsors interested in the sport, electrics and hybrids are the way forward. I can see in 10-15 years, once technology is perfected, F1 being completely electric. And probably damn fast. 

 

Exactly, there is no turning back for F1.

[AustinF1]

Recently - also thanks to Mercedes and BMWs announcement to join the Formula E grid in the next couple of years - there are a lot discussions going on whether this might be a sign that F1 has to follow the future trends even more for its likely next engine formula in 2021. Even within the paddock opinions are split, illustrated by Andrew Benson and Mark Hughes.

 

Andrew Benson ‏@andrewbensonf1  Sep 28
Some won't like hearing it, but it's increasingly hard to see how the next F1 engine formula cannot be more hybrid/electric rather than less
 
Andrew Benson ‏@andrewbensonf1  Oct 4
Only one conclusion from all this: anyone pushing Formula 1 back to a big-capacity internal combustion engine is signing its death warrant

http://www.motorspor...-loud-and-lairy

 

The question is now: How exactly should the future of F1 look like in terms of its engine formula? I know that we had similar discussions a few times here, but given the most recent developments it could merrit its own thread.

As I said when I posted it in the V6 Hybrid noise thread, I agree completely with Hughes in the Loud and Lairy article. F1 didn't become a major force in the sporting world by being road relevant, by trying to appease big auto, or by catering to special interest groups . It got there by being brash, bold, and unapologetic. Try to please everyone and you end up pleasing nobody.

 

So the way forward for F1 is to emulate a slow series with a very small following? I don't think so.

Edited by AustinF1, 06 October 2016 - 13:16.

[Marklar]

...and there have been rumors around for a few months now that Merc may leave F1 after 2017, having gotten out of it all that they can in the short term and leaving, potentially, on top.

 

Aren't Lewis and Nico only signed through 2017? I remember hearing that one hangup in Nico's negotiations was that they would only offer him a 1-year deal. Not saying they'll leave, but I can certainly see the logic if they did.

Both until the end of 2018

 

The reason why they offered Nico just 1 year first was because they didnt wanted both driver contracts to expire in the same year. But in the end they gave him a 2 years deal as Nico wanted 3 years.....they will likely negotiate with one driver (likely Lewis as he has an opt-out option) already next year for a new contract, that's how they solved this issue. So it is not related to any plans to leave F1 in the near future.

Edited by Marklar, 06 October 2016 - 13:16.

[AustinF1]

Both until the end of 2018

 

The reason why they offered Nico just 1 year first was because they didnt wanted both driver contracts to expire in the same year. But in the end they gave him a 2 years deal as Nico wanted 3 years.....they will likely negotiate with one driver (likely Lewis as he has an opt-out option) already next year for a new contract, that's how they solved this issue. So it is not related to any plans to leave F1 in the near future.

Ah, ok. Thanks!  I was wondering if I had the years right. The rumor is that they might quit after 2018 then.

[TomNokoe]

F1 should be a luxury sport. An indulgence in the extreme.

Ironically enough, I think big guzzling engines will be more acceptable in 10 years than today. F1 needs to help the world get there first, then do it's own thing.

[SenorSjon]

I see F1 & FE concepts merging. The manufacturers want road relevance and that's the way it's going.

 

Yeah, I always swap cars halfway during my journeys.

[Kalmake]

I'm wondering how long will they persist with 2WD? Is that something they feel they need to maintain as a link to the feeder series ladder, as well as a point of difference over LMP1?

Rumors of electric drive on front wheels were mentioned in another thread.

[AustinF1]

Yeah, I always swap cars halfway during my journeys.

Yep. Hybrid power is much more likely to be the way of at least the next couple of decades than is full electric power, but even that isn't taking over yet on the roads. Far from it. I completely disagree with the notion that a racing series needs to be road relevant, but the idea that F1 or any series must embrace electric power to achieve road relevance is nonsense. Indeed, I would argue that the lack of fans watching or attending FE events should serve as a warning to F1 not to venture any further down that path.

Edited by AustinF1, 06 October 2016 - 17:18.

[Fastcake]

It's obviously going to be along the lines of the same concept as now, just with a greater proportion of power from the energy recovery systems, probably coupled with a reduction to four cylinders. I wouldn't be surprised if they just dust down the original 2014 idea, with a turbocharged inline four engine.

 

I would prefer something a bit more original and technically open, but you have to be realistic here. It's no good having a fantasy engine idea if no one is going to buy into it. 

[Hati]

It's not just the engines that need attention.

http://gas2.org/2016...one-money-lots/

 

I think that with right set of rules the cost of the car would be closer to Indy and racing would be more levelled.

[Fastcake]

It's not just the engines that need attention.

http://gas2.org/2016...one-money-lots/

 

I think that with right set of rules the cost of the car would be closer to Indy and racing would be more levelled.

 

Well when you're an almost spec-series like Indy it's quite easy to control costs. No set of regulations are going to get F1 costs down to Indycar levels though. They've basically implemented most of the cost-cutting measures that are possible within the rules already. Obviously you could try a hard budget cap, but that's a whole different matter than tinkering with the existing regulations.

[HistoryFan]

I think that the engines 2021 onwards are quite the same than now. With more power from the electric engine.

[FPV GTHO]

Rumors of electric drive on front wheels were mentioned in another thread.

I'm well aware, I probably posted those rumours. But as always, F1 is trying to attract new manufacturers. Last time Audi said they would consider entering if it was a 4 cylinder formula, now who's to say the manufacturers pushing for electric 4WD would follow through and enter?

[Kucki]

They should let Formula E be Formula E, and Formula 1 has to be the ultimate Formula 1 car. Look at the history of Formula 1, and define a Formula that merges everything that made Formula 1 great.

Big fat tires, typical classic car shape, no KERS, DRS or any of that, it has to be simple, beautiful, and a screaming V12 NA. The ultimate Formula 1 engine.

Edited by Kucki, 07 October 2016 - 09:04.

[Henri Greuter]

2.85l Turbo V8's running on methanol for everyone!

 

 

 

eh????

 

mmmm....

 

Question:  What kind of maximum power figures would you like to see in F1 cars? Because:

 

- the atmo 2.4 l was capable of some 750 hp and that was with rev restrictions.

- the IC 1.6 V6T within the current PU's I have no data about them but I rate them at some 800-850 hp. 

 

 

a 2.85 (where does this figure come from?) with all the technology to make it rev as fast as the unrestricted 2.4 could, and with a turbo for good measure as well, any idea what kind of power that is capable off?

The old CART turbocharged 2.65 liters V8's were capable of 800 or so HP and more but the maximum boost they had to achieve that kind of performances was so minimal that one almost became in a situation that adding the turbo was more work for so little to gain with it any longer.

 

Hence my question, what is the power max you envision for F1?

 

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 07 October 2016 - 09:16.

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

 

Hence my question, what is the power max you envision for F1?

 

My take on this. Either 1000kW as in my post above in this thread or we let the engineers decide how much power they want to have to make the car as fast as possible. At some point the more powerful engine isn't worth to be used because the weight penalty for the bigger block/turbo/cooling/fuel weight slows the car down again.

 

Let the engineers find this point!

[OO7]

If the teams want a certain level parity, but also to push the efficiency angle, the rules should cap the maximum output of the power unit (e.g 1000kW as suggested by thegforcemaybewithyou), remove the fuel flow and race fuel allocation limits and free up the PU architecture constraints.  The best designs (most efficient) will shine on race day, as they would require less fuel and hence less weight to complete the race distance.

[Hati]

Hence my question, what is the power max you envision for F1?

Four figures. Although something that has 800hp and can be put to the limit all the time could be better, a 1000hp monster would run parts of the race in economy mode. Biggest problem with Indy-like engine would be that they would need to triple the size of fuel tank in worst case scenario, we need an engine that can do race distance with about 150kg of fuel without saving it.

 

http://cartype.com/p.../3964/indy_info

That says that Indy car averages 1,92mpg, some other site said that it's consumption in oval race (which has much more full throttle than F1 race)  but in any case that translates to 122,5l per 100km which would mean that F1 car would need tank with capacity of over 350 litres. Which is quite lot. Although fuel economy itself isn't important in racing the amount of fuel needed would be impractical, one liter of ethanol weights 789 grams so 375 liters would weigh little under 300kg. (That much weight change during race wouldn't be all bad though, it would make much harder for engineers to optimize car for every weight and we could see races where a car that pulls away with full tank wouldn't be as good with empty one and others would catch it before the end of race.)

[PayasYouRace]

The larger the fuel load the more advantageous it is to under fuel and run light with fuel saving.

[OO7]

The larger the fuel load the more advantageous it is to under fuel and run light with fuel saving.

Yes, I think this is true of the current formula that demands a great deal of tyre saving, so the engineers will calculate the necessary fuel load based on how fast they think the race will run.

[SenorSjon]

Or to refuel the car during the race. That is quite road relevant as almost everybody refuels while underway and not while at home.

 

*runs*

[RPM40]

The reason Mercedes have signed up of for FE is that its £10m a season which is an absolute drop in the ocean for them compared to F1 budgets.
So they'll do Formula E because it's relevant and extraordinarily cheap, whilst they'll do F1 because they can reach 500m eyeballs a weekend.
F1 doesn't need to be relevant at all - its the greatest myth out there. It just needs to be an awesome sporting spectacle.

It's dirt cheap as an advertising expense. Probably similar to what they spend filming and broadcasting a prime time commercial for a small period of time

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

The larger the fuel load the more advantageous it is to under fuel and run light with fuel saving.

 

True to some extent. But I'd rather say that the higher the minimum car weight the more advantageous it is to under fuel and run light with fuel saving.

[PayasYouRace]

True to some extent. But I'd rather say that the higher the minimum car weight the more advantageous it is to under fuel and run light with fuel saving.

 

That would be the other way round. The higher the minimum car weight, the smaller the proportion of the total weight is from fuel, and the smaller the effect of having a fuel load.

[Hati]

The larger the fuel load the more advantageous it is to under fuel and run light with fuel saving.

 

I think it depends on tyres too, if you have tyres that can be driven with full throttle regardless of amount of fuel (i.e. weight) that would negate at least some of the advantage lighter car gives.

 

And we also get back to my favourite subject, cars are too easy to drive. If cars were so hard to drive that teams couldn't predict cut off points in qualification by margin of a tenth of second it would be much harder to calculate how much you can save fuel without lap times dropping too much.

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

That would be the other way round. The higher the minimum car weight, the smaller the proportion of the total weight is from fuel, and the smaller the effect of having a fuel load.

 

I don't think so. It is the sum of the car and the fuel that determines the amount of fuel saving. If the minimum weight would be 20kg lower, teams could use 10 to 15 kg more fuel and still be easier on tyres which get destroyed hard cornering, braking and accelerating mostly.

[PayasYouRace]

I don't think so. It is the sum of the car and the fuel that determines the amount of fuel saving. If the minimum weight would be 20kg lower, teams could use 10 to 15 kg more fuel and still be easier on tyres which get destroyed hard cornering, braking and accelerating mostly.

If we take extremes, 20kg of fuel in a 2 tonne car will have less effect than the same in a 500 kg car.

So on a lighter car it pays more to under fuel.

[AustinF1]

Interesting article here about Jay Leno and his collection. He's a huge F1 fan, and the author gets some thoughts from him on the direction of F1...

 

http://www.kcci.com/...ection/42003032

 

 

...

'It's so complicated now'

 

Look under the hood of any modern road car these days and it will be almost unrecognizable from many of the classics that Leno has nursed back to life.

 

Such is the pace of development that arguably we're already in a place that would have seemed pretty fanciful in sci-fi movies not too long ago.

 

Driverless cars are already here, and the major manufacturers in the US say that nearly all new cars by September 2022 will have automatic emergency braking systems installed as standard; in theory it should be impossible to crash.

 

But for a country in love with its cars, F1 has struggled to make a lasting impact in the US. The US Grand Prix has been on and off over the years, though it seems to have found a home in Austin, where October's race will mark a fifth anniversary.

 

Ironically, Leno thinks the reason for the indifference is that it's too advanced, that it's "overly technical." He suspects the average car enthusiast simply can't relate to F1.

 

"I think in America -- and in Europe, too -- people like to see race cars that they can buy. It's so complicated now, it's almost spacecraft! With the exception of paddle shifters, there's not much the average guy in his garage can really do to make his car emulate an F1."

 

Competition from Indycar and NASCAR

 

Leno is speaking for himself here but he may have a point. The evolution of the sport has also made it harder to penetrate the US. F1's heartland has always been Europe, most of the manufacturers are based there and fans have grown up with it for decades. But in America, it's different and there's also competition from Indycar and in particular, NASCAR.

 

Leno remembers the good old days of NASCAR when car enthusiasts felt a much closer affinity with racing.

 

"In the 60s NASCAR used high performance cars that you could actually buy. So if your dad was a Ford guy and Ford won that week, you'd go to school and say 'yeah we picked the Ford!' Now it's a little different."

 

Perhaps things are slowly changing.

 

The North Carolina-based Haas team is the first American team in F1 for 30 years and the sport has a bespoke home at the Circuit of the Americas in Texas.

 

Even so, there still isn't an American driver in the sport and hasn't been for many years. The last American champion was Mario Andretti in 1978.

 

Leno thinks F1 could do more to help itself though. He personally gets excited by "anything that rolls, explodes and makes noise" and he says it's time F1 really embraced that. "You need to make the engines a bit simpler, a little bigger and a little noisier -- people love the wail of the F1 engine.

 

"The idea is supposed to be about performance, that's what people like to watch. Remember the turbo charge that was really exciting -- you had flames coming out the back and the cars were fascinating to watch. But now, not so much."

[Kucki]

Wise words by Jay Leno. Sadly F1 is not what it used to be, the only ones who stayed with F1 are the electronic nerds and green hippys, who will never know how awesome Formula 1 was and could be. Instead they always want to copy other sports. Make F1 an endurance championship, changing cars into LMP1 cars, now they want to copy Formula E, all run offs even next to straights are giant asphalt oceans, there are no tracks anymore, what a farce this has become. Ugly, silent cars, that need to be gently touched and cruising for the whole race, even the drivers cant stand it anymore. They killed F1.

[PayasYouRace]

I don't agree with Mr Leno. F1 was always about cars that had an unattainable level of technology, that were made by manufacturers and constructors whose machines you were unlikely to see on the road, let alone buy, if they made road cars at all.

[AustinF1]

I don't agree with Mr Leno. F1 was always about cars that had an unattainable level of technology, that were made by manufacturers and constructors whose machines you were unlikely to see on the road, let alone buy, if they made road cars at all.

Yeah, I see what you mean and noticed that too. I could be wrong, but I thought he meant that that was a big part of NASCAR's appeal. 

 

At any rate, you're right in that nothing you were going to see in an F1 car was ever likely to be anything like anything you'd ever seen on any road car (i.e. not at all road-relevant), and that was actually a major part of the appeal. I think that it can work both ways, even with polar opposite approaches. What you don't want, imho, is the situation F1's in now, where they're trying to please everyone.

[minime]

And so it goes on with a million ideas of what is wrong with F1 but not the magic one. The reason F1 is where it is is fairly simple, it does not know what it should be in this changing world. No matter what happens or where it goes the vast majority will all cry and whinge and say they do not agree but still watch the next race. NASCAR that shining light of the good O'l USA has always had a plan, knows what appeals and reels the spectators in though the social changes are even impacting that. I think in the end the world is falling out of love with motor sport as it has fallen out of love with other sports over the years and motor sport will fall to become a niche interest for not a lot of people eventually. With the demise of the ICE it is inevitable that the current interest group, us the fans, will find the changes to come very distasteful and we will leave and possibly the new generation of electronic, social media aware young things will become the new fan group but I would not bet on that either. 

 

It amuses me that every single poster here has the magic fix and they are all different, think about that for a moment and how ridiculous that scenario is. 

[Henri Greuter]

My take on this. Either 1000kW as in my post above in this thread or we let the engineers decide how much power they want to have to make the car as fast as possible. At some point the more powerful engine isn't worth to be used because the weight penalty for the bigger block/turbo/cooling/fuel weight slows the car down again.

 

Let the engineers find this point!

 

 

1000 kW or, for who are more familiar with that:  1362 hp.

 

We have almost 1000 hp right now which allows insane amount of downforce applying junk so all kind of artificial stuff is required to enable some racing and overtaking.

And you want them to be even more powerful....  For even more aero junk and thus downforce in corners or top speeds of over 350 since the additional power can't be used for drag increacing yet downforce generating stuff thus all what happens is that the cars get even faster in a straight line?

 

oh well....

 

 

 

Henri

[lustigson]

The FIA and the teams shouldn't make it too difficult or expensive, and stay with the current basic formula — i.e. 1.6 liter V6 with ERS — but lower the fuel flow limit and increase the output of the ERS.

 

Hybrid tech will be on our roads for some time, so F1 will showcase that more, while electric drivetrain matures further in FE. Down the line the two might merge in one form or another, or one of the two will disappear over time.

 

Edit: oh, and less downforce, instead of more (stupid 2017 rules).

Edited by lustigson, 08 October 2016 - 09:36.

[OO7]

1000 kW or, for who are more familiar with that:  1362 hp.

 

We have almost 1000 hp right now which allows insane amount of downforce applying junk so all kind of artificial stuff is required to enable some racing and overtaking.

And you want them to be even more powerful....  For even more aero junk and thus downforce in corners or top speeds of over 350 since the additional power can't be used for drag increacing yet downforce generating stuff thus all what happens is that the cars get even faster in a straight line?

 

oh well....

 

 

 

Henri

I would also like the cars to be more powerful, but I wouldn't make such a change in isolation, there needs to be a whole raft of changes to the technical regulations.

[OO7]

And so it goes on with a million ideas of what is wrong with F1 but not the magic one. The reason F1 is where it is is fairly simple, it does not know what it should be in this changing world. No matter what happens or where it goes the vast majority will all cry and whinge and say they do not agree but still watch the next race. NASCAR that shining light of the good O'l USA has always had a plan, knows what appeals and reels the spectators in though the social changes are even impacting that. I think in the end the world is falling out of love with motor sport as it has fallen out of love with other sports over the years and motor sport will fall to become a niche interest for not a lot of people eventually. With the demise of the ICE it is inevitable that the current interest group, us the fans, will find the changes to come very distasteful and we will leave and possibly the new generation of electronic, social media aware young things will become the new fan group but I would not bet on that either. 

 

It amuses me that every single poster here has the magic fix and they are all different, think about that for a moment and how ridiculous that scenario is. 

There isn't a single magic fix, F1 has a whole host of problems.  There have always been complaints (this isn't unusual as you can't please everybody), but in recent years the number of complaints have increased and those voices have got and continue to get louder.  Remember double points in Abu Dhabi 2014 and the qualification shambles earlier this year!

Edited by OO7, 08 October 2016 - 09:54.