It's so amazing but the number one comment I get from non fans that watch other racing is "It totally is the best cars and best drivers but I can't watch a parade, no matter how good the skill is.
It’s been a problem pretty much forever. It’s the biggest downfall of a formula series like this, as opposed to Indy which is much closer to a spec series.
I’m really hoping Liberty are in this for the long haul and aren’t just in it to increase their stock price. Unfortunately the hole is so deep they need to take it one step at a time. A complete overhaul will alienate the teams and hardcore fans.
We’re heading in the right direction. More standardized parts, less downforce, possible spending cap, better sustainability, better fan access...the list goes on.
I like to blame Bernie Ecclestone for a lot of problems F1 currently has but if there’s one thing the teams have proved it’s that they’d happily burn the entire thing to the ground if it meant they could be king of the ashes. It’s like they can’t comprehend being less dominant now and increasing parity will make everyone more money in the long run.
Last edited by Cecil Terwilliger; 05-07-2019 at 06:24 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
How far would you take parity? It's important to keep in mind that RBR pretty much dominated the end of the previous formula.
Would you support adding ballast? Add a second tire manufacturer? Bring back refueling?
I fully agree taking downforce away will improve the racing.
My biggest grievance with the new formula remains the sound of the cars. Wish it was possible to keep the number of engines the same but remove the fuel flow/rev limit and let them scream like they used to.
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
I used to be in favour of a tire war and refuelling but have since reconsidered and am firmly in the no camp.
Tires because I don’t want who has the best tires to determine races. With Pirelli as sole supplier every team works with the same benefits and limitations.
Refuelling I’ve gone to no for two reasons. It’s costly and it’s questionable whether it actually increases overtakes. It definitely hinders on track overtaking. I’ve seen images similar to this quite a few times
Spoiler!
It does create some variability with positioning and strategy but I’m not sure if actually helps the on track entertainment.
I’d me more in favour of 2 mandatory pit stops than multiple tire manufacturers or refuelling.
Here’s a chain bear video explaining why. (He makes awesome videos BTW)
Last edited by Cecil Terwilliger; 05-07-2019 at 07:55 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
Red Bull’s domination was interesting because 2010 and especially 2012 are considered two of the best seasons of the 21st century and were remarkably competitive.
Actually there was a stretch from 07-12 that was an amazing run of competitive seasons, if not always competitive races. Too bad I wasn’t following F1 during those years.
I think it was 2012 where it wasn’t uncommon for the entire top 10 to be within 5 tenths of each other in qually. That’s crazy.
With multiple compounds I don't see a need for another tire manufacturer, the element is there and it allows teams to have different strategies. I'd like to see them do away with flying restarts, virtual safety car starts, bunch the field up on a restart and see what happens, not full stop starts but the way it is done now does nothing to add excitement.
Fuel limit should go, and something has to happen with tires. Anything that causes the drivers to not be pushing 100% makes the racing worse. I know this would be really difficult at some tracks, but if they could reduce the pit time loss it would encourage pushing harder and taking an extra pit stop. A 15 second stop and tires that have a 2 second advantage would make it more interesting.
I also think the cars have gotten to big. It makes tracks like Monaco nearly impossible to pass.
I've been in favour of mandating 2 pit stops for a while. You still get interesting strategies but there's less focus on taking it easy for the sake of the tires.
I love the technology of F1, I don't want them to scale that back at all. I just want the drivers to be able to give it their all
Losing Interlagos would be a shame. I've always enjoyed that track. Wish it was a touch wider in places, but combined with the weather conditions usually produces a good race.
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
They make new rules to remove a bunch of aero elements from the front wing. So the teams just move them to the barge boards. Next year expect a new rule to rule elements on the barge boards. Then they'll move them to the drivers helmets or something.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
They make new rules to remove a bunch of aero elements from the front wing. So the teams just move them to the barge boards. Next year expect a new rule to rule elements on the barge boards. Then they'll move them to the drivers helmets or something.
I love that too, but it really adds very little to "racing" part of F1. Not sure if anyone read the Johannson four part works on his ideas, but aero is the beast that must be slayed. So many resources poured into it that takes away from the knifes edge of F1 and forces lots of potential manufacturers out.
I agree with Cecil on the tires though...I want everyone to have the same chance of winning based on their car performance. I think the refueling genie is gone and never to come back. If F1 wants to stay relevant they need to continue the efficiency war and that isn't using more gas. They are already pushing 50% efficiency IIRC and that is crazy high with an ICE main PU.
Also...remember the Spanish GP starts tomorrow!! Lots of teams with big upgrades...even Williams sounds optimistic.
And we have a bunch of people with the $10 in for the trophy. Thanks to those that have responded. For those that haven't check your PM and let me know or send the $10.
The Following User Says Thank You to FLAMESRULE For This Useful Post:
I agree that the aero is getting to be to much, I just love how they comb the rule book and find any loophole they can weasel into. The T wing on the back was a great example of that. I know it odesn't affect racing that much, but these ancillary things are always entertaining for the geeks.
I got into F1 basically PVRing the race, skipping 5 minutes to lights out, and just watching the race. Then I watched qualifying once, and realized how exciting that was, as a secondary competition. Now I watch FP2 if I can, and pre and post race for all the details.
It's nice you can get enjoyment at any level though.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I agree that the aero is getting to be to much, I just love how they comb the rule book and find any loophole they can weasel into. The T wing on the back was a great example of that. I know it odesn't affect racing that much, but these ancillary things are always entertaining for the geeks.
I got into F1 basically PVRing the race, skipping 5 minutes to lights out, and just watching the race. Then I watched qualifying once, and realized how exciting that was, as a secondary competition. Now I watch FP2 if I can, and pre and post race for all the details.
It's nice you can get enjoyment at any level though.
I agree for sure. Just look at all the innovations, ride height/ABS/blown axles/blown floors etc. It's awesome, and some are translatable to our road cars. I just want to see cars that are undriveable by mere mortals and only tamed by F1 drivers. Cars that are absolutely on the edge of whats possible. And seeing a car "on rails" is kind of neat...watching Hamilton get squirrely and power sliding on an overtake is even better..lol.
It's a tricky balance though, and I dont know exactly what the right answer is too get competitive racing between 4+ teams and still allow for all the insanity of tech development.
I agree with Cecil on the tires though...I want everyone to have the same chance of winning based on their car performance. I think the refueling genie is gone and never to come back. If F1 wants to stay relevant they need to continue the efficiency war and that isn't using more gas. They are already pushing 50% efficiency IIRC and that is crazy high with an ICE main PU.
I totally agree with maintain the efficiency gains made over the past few years. What I'd like to see is, you have this much fuel to cover a race distance, up to you with how you use it. Keep the power unit limit, but other than that, have at it. Refueling? Sure. Want to turn 23k RPMs? Go nuts.
The other thing I'm questioning is the forcing of using two compounds. That's the only reason we see 1stoppers now. What happens if they take that away? Everyone starts on the hardest compound on offer and that's that? I think not.
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
I totally agree with maintain the efficiency gains made over the past few years. What I'd like to see is, you have this much fuel to cover a race distance, up to you with how you use it. Keep the power unit limit, but other than that, have at it. Refueling? Sure. Want to turn 23k RPMs? Go nuts.
The other thing I'm questioning is the forcing of using two compounds. That's the only reason we see 1stoppers now. What happens if they take that away? Everyone starts on the hardest compound on offer and that's that? I think not.
I agree. If you look at FE they get a battery that will make it to the end at a certain pace. If you push past that pace then the battery will not have enough power to finish or you need to regenerate more = slower. The Mexico race was won because the leader ran out of power on the last corner.
It's a different approach (fixed energy, fixed PU), and I see its merits, but I prefer your approach (Fixed energy, open PU). "Here's X amount of energy...do whatever you want with it". F1 is trying to do both (limiting fuel flow, no refueling, etc).
The Spanish FP 2 is on...didn't catch FP1 but it looked like a good battle between Merc + Ferrari. I see GrosJean had a solid run in P5. He was working with the new Haas aero kit vs. Magnussen on the old kit. Stroll crashed.
Do you guys know why the qualifying laps are much faster than the race? At Australia the fastest lap was 1.25.580 by Bottas, but in qualifying he did 1.20.598.
Do you guys know why the qualifying laps are much faster than the race? At Australia the fastest lap was 1.25.580 by Bottas, but in qualifying he did 1.20.598.
Fuel loads? Fresh tires? those are my guesses at least
