50 replies to this topic

[Lazarus II]

I started this on train of thought on another thread.

What I'm trying to get at is that the problem with F1 is (IMO) - F1 doesn't even really know what it's about. Is it about the cars, the drivers, glamour, or something entirely different? It can't be everything, so which is it? In the past (and probly future) all F1 does is throw darts at what they percieve as problem areas, but how can you possibly 'fix' the problem when you don't know what it is your trying to accomplish? more emphasis on driver talent or car characteristics....or tracks? F1 has continued this shot-in-the-dark method for far too long. Focus on one or the other (get ready for another 100-pages of back-forth-back-forth) and run with it.

We could go on & on like every other thread on this topic and have pages of bickering back-forth-back-forth-back-forth-back-forth....which only goes to empasize that F1 has problems; big problems.

[MikeTekRacing]

for me it is this
I know it has been posted before

[UPRC]

A healthy mix of drivers and teams.

[Lazarus II]

I understand you want a healthy mix, but the emphasis can't be on both, they've been trying that route (and failing). Maybe it's just me, but IMO F1 needs to decide what the most important aspect of their business is and focus on it.

[Lazarus II]

for me it is this
I know it has been posted before

How should F1 focus on improving the passion and excitement?

[William Hunt]

Other: $$$$$

[Lazarus II]

Other: $$$$$

That's all Bernie has done and look where F1 is now

PS - That's all he'll ever do regardless.

[PEW]

Nice clip - thanks. There were not that many overtaking moves (which many people are clamouring for ) just a lot of guys doing their best to control the beast that is the car, that is what F1 is about

[Birelman]

Well, in reallity, Formula 1 is about teams building the best possible cars within a certain "Formula". This "Formula" is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport. So, it's about the most advanced cars in the world. Is that what it is now? well, subject to debate, I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.

For me, I've never been attracted by the speed itself, (even though speed is great and all) but what really attracts me to racing is the driving itself. It's trying to do a perfect lap. How to break for each turn, where to break, when to turn in, where to accelerate, and next lap do it faster until you find the edge then do it over and over as close as you can get it.

So for me, it's about the driving, so of course, the best drivers in the world driving the most advanced machines in the planet. Is it that? well, sometimes it could be, that's subject to a lot of debate I guess.

Just my thoughts

Edited by Birelman, 08 October 2009 - 21:14.

[Rob]

When it started it mostly involved defining the formula around whatever cars happened to be left over after the war.

[Colombo]

For me - the cars first and foremost! Technical excellence, aesthetical beauty, speed.

GC

[One]

R A C I N G.

[OnyxF1]

Formula One should be about the cars and the teams. The drivers do make a difference, we see this through team-mates stacking up against each other (Hamilton/Kovalainen for example). However, the driver is not as important as some state he/she is. The car is a far bigger performance differentiator and I think that's the way it should stay. We have enough spec/semi-spec series around the world. We don't however have enough non-spec motorsports.

IMO priority should be, Cars/Technology>=Teamwork>Drivers>>>Glamour (I couldn't give a **** about the glamour or the celebrities).

Just my 2 cents.

[pacwest]

for me it is this

Damn, makes me realise how long I've been watching F1.

In all honesty, maybe Murray did influence me but for me F1 is all about the first hundred or so metres to the first turn after the light go out. Goooooooooo! Anyone who has spent some time in a single seater even from a kart up "gets" it. Even tip top racing capture something about it.

F1 to me is about racing and spectacle. Drive a good race an d put on a hell of a show. The politics that come with it add the spice.

[Mandzipop]

I've gone for other as its a mixture of a lot of things.

Technology

Who is the cleverest to exploit loopholes

The cars

The drivers

The glitz and glamour

The political intrigue

The locations

The speed

The noise

To me personally, it is a race of cars around the track with drivers competing as teams as well as against each other. It is one of the most high profile sports in the worls but it is unique in some sense (considering all other sports which are as high profile as F1). In most sports its either as an individual or as a team. F1 is about both. You have to do what is best for the team but your teammate is your arch rival.

F1 drivers are athletes that have to undergo extreme physical punishment and have to have their wits about them at all times. And unlike most sports they are risking their lives. One thing I appreciate about it is that a driver can have a shunt and walk away. I had a 10mph crash and had whiplash for 9 years. It amazes me that they have such big accidents and walk away as if nothing had happened. The mental strength of the drivers I cant comprehend.

It can also impact every normal persons life. Great Ormand Street hospital got Mclaren and Ferrari to help them with speed in operations. To show organisational skills in n extreme speed process. The tiny details go over my head of how much it can affect each car and driver.

ATM overtaking is a bit short in supply so it is currently a game of chess. Who can outsmart each other.

Strangely I also like to watch out for rookies. I think their first few races can be very telling. A future WDC is often quite easy to spot very early on rgardless of the car they drive. There is usually something that you cant always put your finger on, but it is there. I actually think it is easier to notice a backmarker rookie than a rookie in a top team.

Oh yes and the adrenaline buzz at the start of the race. Cant beat it.

Edited by Mandzipop, 08 October 2009 - 22:15.

[noikeee]

F1 is all about the quickest cars around a road circuit in the world (ie not ovals), driven by the best drivers in the world.

You can't really separate one from the other, as if you removed it F1's reputation would very quickly fall apart.

[Bouncing Pink Ball]

Both should be representative of the best available. Some of the best technology, most of the best drivers. There are already various series that emphasis one over the other; going that route draws in pure car enthusiasts or personality/driver fans, but rarely both. Ideally, F1 should be where the two meet in a nice, accessible package.

Preferably, this should include entertaining racing which, unlike many people posting here, I think could be fixed by:

• freeing up the rules to allow tech innovation and
• keeping it all within a reasonable (read: not too restrictive but not insanely high) budget.

[pgj]

Drivers are just jockeys.

[Desdirodeabike]

The way I see it, is that F1 is like a great big motorsport soap opera. And the last couple of years does undeline that. Money, crime, spying, lying, sex scandals. You name it, we got it. You have your heroes and you have your villains. What makes it interesting is that one persons villain could be another persons hero. Take Alonso for example. Some say that he is Gods gift to racing. And some say that he is a spy now employed by the very same people he abused confidential data from. And that he has now learnt to cover his tracks so he will seem innocent even when caught in the middle of other scandals. Intriguing..
Its been running for 60 years now, so it beats Days of our lives and the Young and the restless by miles.

So people that dont follow F1 - well, its just because they havent gotten to know the characters yet. Once they do they will get hooked

[Lazarus II]

Another thought:
If you have the "best cars in the world" wouldn't the "best drivers" gravitate to it? as having the "best cars in the world" will necessitate large budgets.

If that's true then the cars will be more important than the drivers.

This whole exercise shows the difficulty faced by F1. You cannot focus on every aspect of F1. You have to get down to the core reason F1 creates passion, excietment, glamour/glitz, & intrigue. Is it the technology? Is it the drivers? Is it the politics? nah. Is it the cars? Is it the history?

Edited by Lazarus II, 08 October 2009 - 23:07.

[Birelman]

Wow!!, civilized, I would have expected at least 3 posts saying something like:

"Formula 1 is to hate <Place name here> and post it on Autosport forum"

Edited by Birelman, 09 October 2009 - 00:04.

[V8 Fireworks]

Well, in reallity, Formula 1 is about teams building the best possible cars within a certain "Formula". This "Formula" is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport. So, it's about the most advanced cars in the world. Is that what it is now? well, subject to debate, I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.

The reality is that it is an oversized Formula 3 car, made of some bits of carbon fibre reinforced plastic glued together though... The cars are prototypes with no fixed specification.

It's hard for a 2009 Ferrari to have the same collectability as a 1970 Ferrari when the former is such a generic race car, entirely similar to every other F1 car, made of plastic just like the others but happens to be painted red...

[Birelman]

The reality is that it is an oversized Formula 3 car, made of some bits of carbon fibre reinforced plastic glued together though... The cars are prototypes with no fixed specification.

It's hard for a 2009 Ferrari to have the same collectability as a 1970 Ferrari when the former is such a generic race car, entirely similar to every other F1 car, made of plastic just like the others but happens to be painted red...

Well, I agree, that's why I said it's subject to debate

[V8 Fireworks]

Another thought:
If you have the "best cars in the world" wouldn't the "best drivers" gravitate to it? as having the "best cars in the world" will necessitate large budgets.

If that's true then the cars will be more important than the drivers.

This whole exercise shows the difficulty faced by F1. You cannot focus on every aspect of F1. You have to get down to the core reason F1 creates passion, excietment, glamour/glitz, & intrigue. Is it the technology? Is it the drivers? Is it the politics? nah. Is it the cars? Is it the history?

Is the reason conditioning? Nothing fancier or superior to that! It is popular in Europe but not so much in America, as F1 is the main motor racing in Europe and NASCAR is the main motor racing in America.


After all an Englishman thinks Soccer is the best football and Cricket is the best ball and stick sport. While an American would happily refute that point as it is clear that Grid Iron is the best football and baseball is the best ball and stick sport...

At least NASCAR has it's focus clarified... good old boys racing hard and putting on a show for 3.5 hrs. Nothing fancy 'bout the cars.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 09 October 2009 - 00:26.

[Ducks McTeeth]

It is a vanity project for oversized egos.

[ForeverF1]

F1, is whatever 'you' perceive it to be.

[Lazarus II]

Is the reason conditioning? Nothing fancier or superior to that! It is popular in Europe but not so much in America, as F1 is the main motor racing in Europe and NASCAR is the main motor racing in America.


After all an Englishman thinks Soccer is the best football and Cricket is the best ball and stick sport. While an American would happily refute that point as it is clear that Grid Iron is the best football and baseball is the best ball and stick sport...

At least NASCAR has it's focus clarified... good old boys racing hard and putting on a show for 3.5 hrs. Nothing fancy 'bout the cars.

Could be. I take it you are pointing out that I am American. I've followed F1 since '73. Maybe it's just me, but I don't feel alone in saying that F1 is truely broken (it's been that way for ~15yrs). Knee-jerk changes are not working although they are not in short supply. This has nothing to do with Nascar/ALMS/NFL/FIFA. This is only about FIA F1 World Championship. The perfect example is the WDC and the WCC. Which one is the more important? It seems as if the WDC is the more important to the FIA; after all it's what they promote. It easily garners the most press. The WCC is almost an after-thought.

The bottom line is that the sun doesn't rise and fall on F1 and someone somewhere is planning a series to compete against it. As you learn in business, the real competition is the one that hasn't started yet.

Presently F1 uses the scattergun-management technique. Some would say that's not a technique at all. It's a testatment to the followers of F1 that it can be mismanaged as poorly as it has been and yet retain the long-time fans.

As the "old guard" dies away (except Bernie as he died millions of years ago) hopefully F1 will embrace new ideas and figure out what their niche really is in the world.

[slideways]

We have this thread once a year. It should be about the fastest drivers in the fastest cars trying to be fastest to get to the checquered flag.

It is about money.

[fum3s]

Tribalism.

[OssieFan]

This whole exercise shows the difficulty faced by F1. You cannot focus on every aspect of F1. You have to get down to the core reason F1 creates passion, excietment, glamour/glitz, & intrigue. Is it the technology? Is it the drivers? Is it the politics? nah. Is it the cars? Is it the history?

Perhaps it is a mixture of all these things?

I think it's just a bunch of people making racing cars with the goal to beat cars that other people have built. Everything else is really up to us.

[Lazarus II]

We have this thread once a year. It should be about the fastest drivers in the fastest cars trying to be fastest to get to the checquered flag.

It is about money.

"Joined: January 09" - every year?

So let me get this straight, it's about the fastest drivers, fastest cars, and money? All things for everyone....gee I wonder why F1 is screwed up right now with all the real action in the tabloids I can see you don't understand F1 problems either.

[postajegenye]

Money, cars, drivers, tracks, politics, tactics, scandals, history, commitment, glamour, emotions, cheating, egos, technology, masterminds, and many more.

I love it.

[seltaeb]

I personally think that too much emphasis has been placed on technology. The cars take what, two dozen people, even more computers, and half an hour to turn on? What happened to turn the key and go? Why can't drivers operate a clutch and a stick shift anymore? Maybe we'd actually have some overtaking if they placed those elements back into play.

To me, F1 is more about drivers, history, and skill. The cars are an undoubtedly important variable, but I do think the technical aspect of the cars has detracted from the core purpose of F1, the close racing of the best drivers in the world.

[Timstr11]

Formula One should be about the cars and the teams. The drivers do make a difference, we see this through team-mates stacking up against each other (Hamilton/Kovalainen for example). However, the driver is not as important as some state he/she is. The car is a far bigger performance differentiator and I think that's the way it should stay. We have enough spec/semi-spec series around the world. We don't however have enough non-spec motorsports.

IMO priority should be, Cars/Technology>=Teamwork>Drivers>>>Glamour (I couldn't give a **** about the glamour or the celebrities).

Just my 2 cents.

I have the same view.

[Jackmancer]

Formula 1 is about a lot of things. It's just a missunderstanding if you think it's "just" about racing. If you want to see "just" racing, go to some national race cup because in those races, the racing is heaps better.

Formula 1 is a whole sum of things, it is the pinnacle of motorsport, top level of drivers, top level of teams and their employees are among the best as well. That's the racing part, which is surrounded by politics (Vatanen vs Todt, FiA, FOTA), celebrities (Branson, Scherzinger, etc), retired drivers who have their oppinion (Lauda, Steward, etc). It's about sponsors (ING leaving Renault, Canon at BrawnGP, we discuss it here, so yes, it's important) and nationalities. History and records play a big part as well.

Probably a heap of things I'm not thinking of!

Edited by Jackmancer, 09 October 2009 - 07:32.

[Orin]

I started this on train of thought on another thread.

What I'm trying to get at is that the problem with F1 is (IMO) - F1 doesn't even really know what it's about. Is it about the cars, the drivers, glamour, or something entirely different? It can't be everything, so which is it? In the past (and probly future) all F1 does is throw darts at what they percieve as problem areas, but how can you possibly 'fix' the problem when you don't know what it is your trying to accomplish? more emphasis on driver talent or car characteristics....or tracks? F1 has continued this shot-in-the-dark method for far too long. Focus on one or the other (get ready for another 100-pages of back-forth-back-forth) and run with it.

We could go on & on like every other thread on this topic and have pages of bickering back-forth-back-forth-back-forth-back-forth....which only goes to empasize that F1 has problems; big problems.

Good question, and there's the related question of "Why do you like F1?", as I've long struggled to provide a cogent answer to this latter question I suspect I don't have a clear idea of what F1's about either.

However I do find F1 has the same kind of appeal as the major sailing competitions (e.g. the Americas Cup): it starts off with an engineering project which tests ingenuity, but at the sharp end requires a mixture of guts, skill and tactical nous. With the FIA trying to make bulletproof cars run on bland tracks, Ecclestone looking for theatrical entertainment, and the manufacturers hoping to sell more cars, I suspect no one is asking the question you've posed - or if they are, they're doing so from their point of view, rather than that of the fans. As much as I like the glamour, etc. it's just frills, it's not sufficient by itself.

[ForeverF1]

I still stand by my earlier answer here.

[Tenmantaylor]

Even tho F1 drivers are elevated to demi-god status on occasion the fact is the team is the more important factor in F1 than most motorsports.

[Motormedia]

To me, it should be about man against the machine, the driver controlling uncontrollable forces... Today, the drivers are operators of fail safe machines.

[metz]

Clearly Other > Money > Sponsors

Car > Faster > Wins > Sponsors

Drivers > Popularity > Media Exposure > Sponsors

[Tenmantaylor]

To me, it should be about man against the machine, the driver controlling uncontrollable forces... Today, the drivers are operators of fail safe machines.

Fail safe compared to what? No TC, no ABS. You think they should get rid of power steering and bring back cross plys? A ridiculous comment. Did you even watch qualifying for the Japanese GP? The cars were anything but failsafe. Even experienced F1 driver Glock in a front running car made a huge driving error failing to control his machine.

[andy-i]

R A C I N G.

If only it was

[Lewis]

Other

Mix of racing drivers, cars, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and

[jez6363]

For me its primarily about the technology - which team can make the fastest car within the regulations. Who can come up with a new idea that gives them a killer advantage (until its copied).

Almost equally, its about seeing a driver get more out of a car than is there to be gotten.

The biggest frustration in F1, for me anyway, is that the above are both ruined by the fact that it is next to impossible to overtake, so it becomes about who has the best strategy, and who is lucky with on-track events, and luck during qualifying. I know that over the season, it will average out and still be about right, but it doesn't FEEL like that, and it very rarely rewards a brilliant drive any more, unless its a wet race.

[David M. Kane]

In a way the answer is about the question, it seems it's identity is lost.

[Motormedia]

Fail safe compared to what? No TC, no ABS. You think they should get rid of power steering and bring back cross plys? A ridiculous comment. Did you even watch qualifying for the Japanese GP? The cars were anything but failsafe. Even experienced F1 driver Glock in a front running car made a huge driving error failing to control his machine.

Go back to the late 80's or early 90's even and you'll see the cars moving around a lot more. Todays cars are on rails. Incredibly boring to watch and the convey no sense of the effort it takes to drive one of those cars. Todays cars are fail safe compared to anything else from the history of F1. There's no need to nurse the car, it holds up from start to finish, no engine change is even needed between the races.

[ch103]

I suppose that it would be hard to pick one option in the opening post. If we say F1 = Drivers + Cars + Other, then it would be hard for F1 to be F1 if one of those three components were missing.

Heres why I think you cannot have F1 if 1 component is missing.

Drivers - goes without saying. The best drivers in the world need to reside here. Without the most talented drivers it cannot be recognized as premier.

Cars - If F1 were to solely focus on car developments, then bugdets would get out of control since Cars are the physical output of R&D i.e. the more advanced a car and its technology the more expensive it is(See 2008 aero). However, unless you have the most technologically advanced cars in the world, F1 loses some of its luster and prestige.

Other - which can be anything, including the exotic locations they go to Monaco, Singapore etc, it can be tracks (SPA and Suzuka and Monza) and lets not forget, profit.

The platform for advertising that F1 offers, provides an incentive to contribute boatloads of cash to the teams. Which can then develop the best cars and hire the best drivers.

[Orin]

Go back to the late 80's or early 90's even and you'll see the cars moving around a lot more. Todays cars are on rails. Incredibly boring to watch and the convey no sense of the effort it takes to drive one of those cars. Todays cars are fail safe compared to anything else from the history of F1. There's no need to nurse the car, it holds up from start to finish, no engine change is even needed between the races.

It's not great, is it? I remember the positive response in this forum to the coming era of bulletproof cars, whereas part of the appeal for me was that F1 cars were made for maximum performance over a race distance. Colin Chapman's definition of perfection (IIRC) was a car which fell to pieces as it crossed the finishing line. I used to like it when Minardi could turn up to the first race of the season excited at the possibility of snatching a point, nowadays mechanical failures are rare. However, I disagree with you about the cars being boring to watch; before the common electronic control box (and while traction control was officially allowed) they made a terrible spectacle, but nowadays they've improved hugely.

[Victor_RO]

Colin Chapman's definition of perfection (IIRC) was a car which fell to pieces as it crossed the finishing line.

I recall Ferdinand Porsche or his son to have said this. Anyway, it's not really significant who said it, the implications of this saying are hugely significant.

[OnyxF1]

Go back to the late 80's or early 90's even and you'll see the cars moving around a lot more. Todays cars are on rails. Incredibly boring to watch and the convey no sense of the effort it takes to drive one of those cars. Todays cars are fail safe compared to anything else from the history of F1. There's no need to nurse the car, it holds up from start to finish, no engine change is even needed between the races.

They are failsafes because of the regulations. The current regs are based around reliability. 8 engines per season, engines rev-limited to 18,000 rpm, gearbox has to last 4 races e.t.c. What do you expect? You aren't going to get massive amounts of mechanical failures again. The sport is too professional and too highly regulated.