368 replies to this topic

[Ross Stonefeld]

People don't tune in for engine regs. Or tire wars. Or zero keel suspensions. People want to watch fast cars, good racing, their national drivers, etc. The majority of F1 fans are casual at best. They barely follow the news in between events, they're not going to get lost in the details of the engine formula.

[saudoso]

Ross Stonefeld, on Dec 5 2010, 18:11, said:

People don't tune in for engine regs. Or tire wars. Or zero keel suspensions. People want to watch fast cars, good racing, their national drivers, etc. The majority of F1 fans are casual at best. They barely follow the news in between events, they're not going to get lost in the details of the engine formula.

It's about the noise, not the engine formula. That's the single outstanding thing about F1 cars. That's what shouldn't be killed.

Edited by saudoso, 05 December 2010 - 20:27.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Hmm, sounds an awful lot like what people said when they ditched V10s. And I guess no one liked F1 during the previous turbo era.

[WhiteBlue]

My GF says she may even come to a race if they fix the noise. Some people get physically sick without ear protectors. So you can see there is opinion both ways. I'm sure the cars will still sound impressive whatever they do. The last generation of turbos was loved as well. If we had had an internet at the time I'm sure we would have had people slitting their veins metaphorically over the demise of the qualifying engines telling us it would be all doom now.

[gruntguru]

I agree, its all about the racing - close racing. Passing, dicing etc and I mean close-range dicing, not this remote stuff where the following car is actually dicing with the other guy's slipstream. Proper passing too, using skill, strategy, technology, whatever - anything except some artificial advantage that is granted to a driver for the momentous feat of being "behind a faster car" - utter BS!

[Canuck]

gruntguru, on Dec 5 2010, 20:53, said:

anything except some artificial advantage that is granted to a driver for the momentous feat of being "behind a faster car" - utter BS!

Or being the "team favourite" - err Ruebens, please pull over and allow your teammate past - we like him more so he gets the win.

[MatsNorway]

http://www.f1pulse.c...ws_article.aspx

Bernie don`t like the new engine rules either.

[WhiteBlue]

MatsNorway, on Dec 6 2010, 17:16, said:

Bernie don`t like the new engine rules either.

Quote

We have a very good engine formula,” he told BBC Sport. Why should we change it to something that is going to cost millions of pounds and that nobody wants and that could end up with one manufacturer getting a big advantage?

This should not be a surprise to anybody! When FiA and FOTA agree on anything it is a black day for Bernie. He has duped the owner and the main player of the series for ages into accepting the scraps from the table while his company was pocketing the lion's share of the profits. Divide and conquer has always been his system of applying supremacy.

Surely he would love to perpetuate the system but the prospects look very bleak now. He is only 24 month away from the point in time when the 2009 Concord Agreement runs out. His main negotiation partners have both prepared the house for the big round to come. The FOTA has fixed the RRA until 2017 which covers the next five year period of the Concord. It means that the teams will have financial stability and Bernie will have no chance to split them on the money politics. The FiA have now tied up the fundamental rule changes that will govern the next 10 years in Formula1. No manufacturer or team alliance will be able to stop them developing F1 along those lines. The prospect for Bernie to drive them into disagreement and rob them at point blank appear very small.

I predict that Bernie will encounter a blood letting of unprecedented dimension when the new income distribution of the 2013 Concord is settled. He will loose at least another 20% of the revenues which has made life for him and his employers so plush for many years. I would not even be surprised if CVC's share in profit goes from 50% to 20%, in fact I expect CVC to pull out of the business once they realize what has happened.

[cheapracer]

Ross Stonefeld, on Dec 6 2010, 04:11, said:

People don't tune in for engine regs. Or tire wars. Or zero keel suspensions. People want to watch fast cars, good racing, their national drivers, etc. The majority of F1 fans are casual at best. They barely follow the news in between events, they're not going to get lost in the details of the engine formula.

90% true but some do like to hang on F1 'power words' to be able to behave like they are informed.

I love safety car periods now to be able to listen to that booming Benz thundering around - theres a clue there and having watched F5000's and F1's in the same race I know which I prefer and why NASCAR and V8 Supercars are still popular.

[readonly]

gruntguru, on Dec 5 2010, 21:53, said:

I agree, its all about the racing - close racing. Passing, dicing etc and I mean close-range dicing, not this remote stuff where the following car is actually dicing with the other guy's slipstream. Proper passing too, using skill, strategy, technology, whatever - anything except some artificial advantage that is granted to a driver for the momentous feat of being "behind a faster car" - utter BS!

I think you may like this
Head: Reverse The Grid

[Greg Locock]

readonly, on Dec 9 2010, 04:25, said:

I think you may like this
Head: Reverse The Grid

Or not. Reverse grids were occasionally used in taxicab races and were unsatisfactory and unpopular.

[cheapracer]

Greg Locock, on Dec 9 2010, 05:32, said:

Or not. Reverse grids were occasionally used in taxicab races and were unsatisfactory and unpopular.

Indeed, thats entertainment racing.

I think most are happy just with fair play, I don't need to see Indycar "Hanford Wing" style racing/passing but when a racer is 1+ seconds per lap faster than the car in front I expect a pass to be able to be negotiated within a few laps.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Handford racing was actually pretty good because they had to think about what they were doing. The problem was it was used primarily on 500mile races which were way way too long. A Handford-wing'd 100miler would be awesome.

As for Patrick Head, doesn't he realise that if they invert the grid the Williams will still be lining up about 12th?

[Wuzak]

Ross Stonefeld, on Dec 9 2010, 10:03, said:

Handford racing was actually pretty good because they had to think about what they were doing. The problem was it was used primarily on 500mile races which were way way too long. A Handford-wing'd 100miler would be awesome.

As for Patrick Head, doesn't he realise that if they invert the grid the Williams will still be lining up about 12th?

Yrs, but they'll have a better chance at getting to the front!

[Wuzak]

Dieter Rencken has shed some light on the 2013 rules in the past few weeks, first with the engine rules and now with the chassis rules.

The future of Formula 1's engine regulations
Looking into F1's future chassis

We have already spoken at length about the engine rules.

The new chassis rules will specify a pair of ground effects tunnels, small front wing, standard rear wing, larger wheels with lower profile tyres (size yet to be decided) and downforce levels similar to a Monza spec for all races.

James Key, one of Rencken's sources, says:

Quote

It's a complete car change, it would be I think technically a fantastic challenge for everyone. So I relish it on the engineering front – yes we have to look at the costs and be sensible about what we can accommodate in one go – but from a purely technical point of view I don't mind the challenge; whatever the regulations finish up being, I think it's great to have something fresh to think about.

It is believed that the low profile tyres will be "more peaky" than currently, combining with the lower downforce to give the drivers a bigger challenge.


Rencken is enthusiastic about the regulations:

Quote

However, when all is said and done, the (proposed) regulations appear to be a step in the right direction in virtually every aspect – from spectacle through sporting and technical challenge to eco-friendliness – subject, of course, to costs being contained (requiring early notice) and the engine, chassis and dynamics, aero, and tyre regulations being fully integrated, with electronics and hydraulics tightly controlled.

I'm not so excited.

Firstly, the quality of the racing remains to be seen - it could be as exciting as some are predicting, but on the other hand it could prove to be as dull as anything we've ever seen.

Secondly, the cars will be significantly slower - there is now way it could be any other way. Races like Monaco will suffer more than others as the difference in downforce is greater. GP2 cars will have to be slowed too if they are to remain slower than F1....

I'm not to fond of the standard aero bits. It will also mean less differentiation between makes, as the shape and size of the engine will be the same, the tunnels will be standard and dictate the size and shape of the sidepods (which will probably also be regulated). Aero development will be limited due to these factors.


The standard rear wing is the thin edge of the wedge for me. It is the first step to having a one chassis series.

And if the rules (engine and chassis) don't provide the spectacle desired, how long before they can fix them?

[Ali_G]

It would be fine as long as they don't go down the spec rear wing route.

They need to allow the cars to have more downforce and give them more power from those new turbo engines.

What you didn't mention is also the possibility of energy recovery from the front wheels under braking which means that the 2013 cars will require fully low front noses, pre 1990 style.

[Wuzak]

Ali_G, on Mar 12 2011, 04:06, said:

What you didn't mention is also the possibility of energy recovery from the front wheels under braking which means that the 2013 cars will require fully low front noses, pre 1990 style.

It would seem that the 2013 engine rules require KERS working only on the rear wheels, as is the case now. The current Le Mans rules allow for the use of KERS on two wheels, but doesn't specify which.

Also, Benetton ran a brake force distribution device, basically a type of differential, which required drive shafts to the front wheels but still retained a high nose.



Benetton B199 with Front Torque Transfer

[WhiteBlue]

Why are the 2013 discussions not done in this thread?

[Scotracer]

Does anyone (else) actually care?