40 replies to this topic

[CountDooku]

Sorry in advance for yet another thread on F1's future but there have been a lot of new proposals flying about which, to me, are not supported by the AS BB membership. None of the individual threads had polls in them and I figured it would be a good idea to canvas forum-wide support for a number of Liberty's proposals and other common complaints fans make about F1 in one place.

 

Please vote and comment below on any items to be added to the poll. Hopefully people at the FIA and/or Liberty see this and do something about it.

 

NOTE. Only vote for the items that you support.

Edited by CountDooku, 04 April 2018 - 13:13.

[SenorSjon]

Perhaps you could enter the questions from the two fan reviews. Refuelling had about 60% support in those. Unfortunately, you cannot vote again, so if you add things later, it cannot be voted upon(?)

 

You could also add the individuel topics to the topic start to keep the discussions there.

Edited by SenorSjon, 04 April 2018 - 13:05.

[maximilian]

Do we need yet ANOTHER thread like this?

[CountDooku]

Perhaps you could enter the questions from the two fan reviews. Refuelling had about 60% support in those. Unfortunately, you cannot vote again, so if you add things later, it cannot be voted upon(?)

 

You could also add the individuel topics to the topic start to keep the discussions there.

 

Thanks, added the suggestion. It's still early in the thread so hopefully shouldn't mess up with the final result too much.

 

 

Do we need yet ANOTHER thread like this?

 

see below.

 

Sorry in advance for yet another thread on F1's future but there have been a lot of new proposals flying about which, to me, are not supported by the AS BB membership. None of the individual threads had polls in them and I figured it would be a good idea to canvas forum-wide support for a number of Liberty's proposals and other common complaints fans make about F1 in one place.

 

 

[SenorSjon]

Unfortunately I already voted, but I'm in favor of refuelling. So you cannot add things. You have to reset the poll after you have the final list I guess? Any admin care to weigh in?

Edited by SenorSjon, 04 April 2018 - 13:25.

[THEWALL]

Don´t know if "some issue with the tyres" covers this but eliminating use of two compounds would be on the top of my list. I'd also propose races with no tyre changes, possibility of mixing compounds, eliminate parc ferme rules, possibility of using spare cars for re-starts, putting grass and gravel back on tracks instead of concrete escape routes...

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

I want to ban wind tunnels, where should I sign?

[Antemeridian]

I voted on what I support, but there were a few things that I don't necessarily support, but also don't really impact me one way or the other (e.g. mascots, etc.) 

[CountDooku]

Don´t know if "some issue with the tyres" covers this but eliminating use of two compounds would be on the top of my list. I'd also propose races with no tyre changes, possibility of mixing compounds, eliminate parc ferme rules, possibility of using spare cars for re-starts, putting grass and gravel back on tracks instead of concrete escape routes...

 

There are a million and one gripes people have with the tyres (too soft, too hard, too many compounds, not enough compounds, too wide, too narrow etc etc) so I thought it would be easier to just group it under one section rather than cater to all of them in the poll.

[CountDooku]

I voted on what I support, but there were a few things that I don't necessarily support, but also don't really impact me one way or the other (e.g. mascots, etc.) 

 

You voted correctly then.

 

 

I want to ban wind tunnels, where should I sign?

 

"less aero, more mechanical"?

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

"less aero, more mechanical"?

Not really but it is not your fault. Banning wind tunnel doesn't look like to be on the radar any time soon.

[noikeee]

when will the forum software ever fix the percentages bug with polls like this?

 

 

It calculates a percent of the sum of all votes. That makes no sense for multiple choice polls like this. It should be 37 out of 40 people voted for this hence that's 92,5% not 12,67%.

[Fastcake]

I deliberately undervoted here, as some options are dependent on others.

 

I'd support removing DRS in theory, but it has to stay while the aero prohibits overtaking. You also can't reduce limitations on engines while the teams struggle with costs. And smaller and lighter cars sounds nice, but it's a vague goal without defining the engine and chassis rules.

 

 

(Also why did you mix up the mascot and grid girl trivia with the serious stuff...)

[Marklar]

when will the forum software ever fix the percentages bug with polls like this?

Never

[CountDooku]

I deliberately undervoted here, as some options are dependent on others.

 

I'd support removing DRS in theory, but it has to stay while the aero prohibits overtaking. You also can't reduce limitations on engines while the teams struggle with costs. And smaller and lighter cars sounds nice, but it's a vague goal without defining the engine and chassis rules.

 

 

(Also why did you mix up the mascot and grid girl trivia with the serious stuff...)

 

Unfortunately it's not possible to create a path-dependent poll on the BB!

 

And the grid girls and mascots are recent proposals which generated a fair amount of debate. Voting (or not) for them doesn't stop you for voting for other issues so it shows their relative importance.

 

Stop complaining and create a better poll yourself next time. 

[Mat13]

I voted in support of head protection, with the caveat that it isnt the halo.

[R Soul]

Why does the 1st option have halo written in capital letters?

 

 

There are some options I'd like to vote for but the list makes me imagine some cautionary tale involving a mischievous genie who gives you exactly what you wish for. For example, "Change aero to aid overtaking" sounds good, but it could be anything from "Relentless focus on minimising turbulence" to "DRS whenever the driver wants it while there's a car ahead".

[Afterburner]

Why does the 1st option have halo written in capital letters?

I’m pretty sure that spelling has reached meme status. Either that, or it stands for “Heinous Abomination a Lunatic Ordered”.

Either way, the poll is highly flawed coupling head protection and the halo into the same option. You’re bound to get many votes for the former and very few for the latter.

[Ramon69]

I voted for the following:

 

- Removing the need for long-lasting components (better able to push in races);

- Change aero to aid overtaking - we need more overtaking;

- Smaller / lighter cars - not necesarily smaller, but at least lighter;

- In-race refuelling - I'm surprised about the fact that very few of you voted for this as F1 should be about RACING AND PUSHING THE LIMITS! This is not an outdated concept, it is the DNA of Motorsport! Eco-friendly driving (coasting) and fuel saving have no place in racing... 

 

 

[Jerem]

 

- In-race refuelling - I'm surprised about the fact that very few of you voted for this as F1 should be about RACING AND PUSHING THE LIMITS! This is not an outdated concept, it is the DNA of Motorsport! Eco-friendly driving (coasting) and fuel saving have no place in racing... 

The narrative usually is that F1 was boring and had no overtaking during refuelling era. I agree with you though.

[RedBaron]

This is actually a pretty decent poll, nice one CountDooku

[jjcale]

Sorry in advance for yet another thread on F1's future but there have been a lot of new proposals flying about which, to me, are not supported by the AS BB membership. None of the individual threads had polls in them and I figured it would be a good idea to canvas forum-wide support for a number of Liberty's proposals and other common complaints fans make about F1 in one place.

 

Please vote and comment below on any items to be added to the poll. Hopefully people at the FIA and/or Liberty see this and do something about it.

 

NOTE. Only vote for the items that you support.

 

Dont you also need a "no"/I dont support this option too ... ?

[CountDooku]

Dont you also need a "no"/I dont support this option too ... ?

Poll limited to 20 items only I think, didn’t want it too busy. Your lack of voting for an item is a tacit vote that you do not support it, or are at least indifferent.

Edited by CountDooku, 04 April 2018 - 20:46.

[RacingGreen]

I want to ban wind tunnels, where should I sign?

 

Why ban wind tunnels?  Every team has a budget and should be allowed to spend that anyway they like that makes the cars faster - wind tunnels, in season testing, more computer designed aero, hiring the best driver, a really big coffee machine in their motor-home, a team mascot  - anything. It's up to the teams to manage the budget efficiently so they get the best bang for their buck, it's up to Liberty to distribute the money in a fair way so they have resources that they can prioritise however they choose. Banning wind tunnels is just more unneeded technical regulation.

[FNG]

- In-race refuelling - I'm surprised about the fact that very few of you voted for this as F1 should be about RACING AND PUSHING THE LIMITS! This is not an outdated concept, it is the DNA of Motorsport! Eco-friendly driving (coasting) and fuel saving have no place in racing... 

 

 

Did you not remember what happened in the refuelling era? No one would bother to attempt a pass on track and just wait to do it in the pits. I like the idea of cars sprinting faster on small fuel loads, that's awesome. Not bothering to pass cause you had an extra lap of fuel? Horrible!

 

Pushing the limits left F1 when the limited number of engines came into effect. Now it's bloody endurance racing with saving the engines and fuel.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

Why ban wind tunnels?  Every team has a budget and should be allowed to spend that anyway they like that makes the cars faster - wind tunnels, in season testing, more computer designed aero, hiring the best driver, a really big coffee machine in their motor-home, a team mascot  - anything. It's up to the teams to manage the budget efficiently so they get the best bang for their buck, it's up to Liberty to distribute the money in a fair way so they have resources that they can prioritise however they choose. Banning wind tunnels is just more unneeded technical regulation.

Windtunnel ban can save costs and also can make Formula1 field to get a little bit more closer in terms of car development facility and ability. Wealthy Teams need to update their windtunnel facilities every now and then to make sure they are not falling behind and this costly cycle never ends but smaller teams don't have the money to update their windtunnels. There are other low cost solutions that can replace windtunnel and can help smaller teams to minimize the never ending gap to the bigger teams.

 

Teams like Mercedes and Ferrari have updated their windtunnels recently. McLaren use outdated windtunnel and based on RedBull's proposal to ban windtunnels, it is easy to guess that RedBull's windtunnel is getting outdated as well. AFAIK, the cost of running and updating windtunnels is very high.

Edited by RainyAfterlifeDaylight, 04 April 2018 - 23:22.

[Jerem]

Don't be fooled, if you ban wind tunnels they'll spend the money on something else. If you want to reduce costs, either allow customer cars or cap the budgets.

[Jerem]

Did you not remember what happened in the refuelling era? No one would bother to attempt a pass on track and just wait to do it in the pits. I like the idea of cars sprinting faster on small fuel loads, that's awesome. Not bothering to pass cause you had an extra lap of fuel? Horrible!

 

Pushing the limits left F1 when the limited number of engines came into effect. Now it's bloody endurance racing with saving the engines and fuel.

Opinions on refuelling are like religions, we tolerate the other's even though we're sure they're wrong - and we pity them for that - but most of us will never change it. That being said, I'm an agnostic refuellist.

 

So I'd correct your post with "not being able to" rather than "not bothering". If they could actually overtake they did it. Problem is, it was impossible... I agree with your second point though, the refuelling ban is not the only reason why it's no longer a sprint.

 

Now we're in an era where we have the fastest cars ever, and drivers are saving everything and cannot overtake (it's as difficult as in the refuelling era without DRS, and sometimes DRS makes it easier - if they had DRS back then you'd have seen much less of the "Trulli trains"). So the only strategic option available is to undercut or overcut by one lap or two, and when you do that from within 2-3s from the car ahead or behind it usually can be covered quite easily.

I wish they brought back refuelling, but with slower fuel pumps, so that taking more fuel in the tank at the pitstop can actually cost you more than a few tenths but can also be worth it when you can go longer on the next stint...

[Afterburner]

Don't be fooled, if you ban wind tunnels they'll spend the money on something else. If you want to reduce costs, either allow customer cars or cap the budgets.

Or, make it a condition of competing that every part from a team’s car be made available for sale to competitors, design information and all, with a maximum price for each part stipulated in advance. To account for design differences, smaller components will be considered part of a larger whole (e.g. “front wing”). This is the only way to keep costs in check, because the punishment for overspending is that everyone has the chance to recoup the benefits of your investment.

A “budget cap” is pie-in-the-sky thinking. There’s no way to police it.

[Jerem]

Or, make it a condition of competing that every part from a team’s car be made available for sale to competitors, design information and all, with a maximum price for each part stipulated in advance. To account for design differences, smaller components will be considered part of a larger whole (e.g. “front wing”). This is the only way to keep costs in check, because the punishment for overspending is that everyone has the chance to recoup the benefits of your investment.

A “budget cap” is pie-in-the-sky thinking. There’s no way to police it.

I agree with your proposition, it's just a more refined (and sensible) version of "customer cars".

However it's perfectly possible to police budget caps. For example in some countries, there are caps on how much candidates can spend for electoral campaigns.

[CountDooku]

So after 100 votes exactly I took noikee’s advice and created this chart rebased to 100% (on an iPad no less)!

 

 

some surprising results and some are pretty obvious. 

[CountDooku]

Things which are easily apparent are that fans want more overtaking and fair revenue distribution and Liberty must ensure action is taken for the next technical period/Concorde.

I’m personally surprised the support for a budget cap is so high and that support for an engine change is relatively low given the level of complaints about noise. I also thought support for refuelling would be higher. It seem people are finally coming to terms with Pirelli.

Of no shock to anyone is the fact that very very few people want tweaks to the weekend format and communist qualifications. Support for the Halo/head protection and more races is also fairly unpopular.

Edited by CountDooku, 05 April 2018 - 14:06.

[noikeee]

I didn't tick "change engine sound/architecture" as I believe we should continue with V6 hybrid turbos (not that super fussed with the sound tbh), BUT they should be simplified to control costs such as spec-ing or removing some of the most complex parts (which would have the collateral effect of also equalizing the engines a bit more). That's still the same "architecture" so that's why I didn't tick it, although I guess I want the engines changed. I wonder if others thought along the same lines (although I know not being worried about the sound is a bit of a minority).

 

Another subtle thing about how the poll is formulated: only 5% are in favour of a mascot!!! Now if the poll was the other way around, "which of the following things you HATE and don't want to see", I bet we wouldn't see 95% ticking the mascot.    I think it's one of those things that people are completely indifferent to it so don't "support" it but don't hate it neither.

 

Not hating on the poll though, it's an interesting one.

Edited by noikeee, 05 April 2018 - 14:13.

[Afterburner]

I agree with your proposition, it's just a more refined (and sensible) version of "customer cars".
However it's perfectly possible to police budget caps. For example in some countries, there are caps on how much candidates can spend for electoral campaigns.

Writing a budget cap into the rules is all well and good, but there’s no way you’ll ever force everyone to follow it. Suddenly, Chrysler will be spending loads of time in the wind tunnel testing concepts for a potential F1 entry and then mysteriously abandoning them, or an affiliate of an affiliate of an affiliate of Red Bull evaluating an aero concept for a “completely unrelated reason”, or Smart will be running a brand new V6T hybrid concert on the dyno.

It’s just not practical. There would be loopholes everywhere, and the FIA has a hard enough time policing their own rules already. These are racing teams, remember: the same sort of people who claimed that the space inside the fuel tank was the boot space in their GTP entry–and won.

Edited by Afterburner, 05 April 2018 - 15:28.

[JoeDede]

I voted yes to all those that mean building race cars and not parade cars. I honestly don't care about mascots or grid girls etc. They can do whatever they want.

[Burai]

Changing the aero won't solve the overtaking issue by itself. The braking distances will still be too short.

 

You need to look at the tyres and brakes too. The materials, the efficiency. Longer braking distances mean a larger window for error which makes overtaking more likely. What about the asphalt itself? The track layout? Temperatures?

 

This poll sums up a lot of F1's problems right now. Trying to find quick fixes by looking at different parts as if they don't interact with each other. Allowing personal biases to dictate what's important and what isn't. What I want to see from the FIA and Liberty going forward is an holistic approach to the sport. Everything works as a whole. From the car, to the track, to the people participating, to the people watching. There's no point changing the aero to let cars follow more closely if the brakes mean they still can't pass each other. No point bringing back refuelling if it means people won't pass on the track. No point making the engines louder if the racing is still dull. No point changing the weekend format if the product leaves people feeling bored for 30 mins rather than 2 hours. etc.

[Andy35]

Fans need a party mode button.

[Afterburner]

I’m noticing there’s a very important option missing from the poll. Years ago, there was someone who suggested they go back to H-pattern gearboxes, and select a random gear (different in every car) to exchange with reverse gear. I’d totally have voted for that option.

[AustinF1]

 

Brawn’s bringing back the roar.

 

 

“The show has to be the number-one priority,” Brawn says, and then starts slapping the table to punctuate the list of factors that, to him, define Formula One: “The racing [slap], the drivers [slap], the history [slap], the noise [slap], the smell [slap], the atmosphere [slap].

https://www.popsci.c...ric-cars#page-3

[PlatenGlass]

I voted for the Halo/head protection thing, but I'm not in favour of the Halo - I think a nicer solution can be found that isn't as ugly as Sebastian Vettel's new haircut.

[AustinF1]

I voted for the Halo/head protection thing, but I'm not in favour of the Halo - I think a nicer solution can be found that isn't as ugly as Sebastian Vettel's new haircut.

I didn't vote for it, but yeah, this pretty much sums up my view. I'm for enhanced protection, and against the halo.