Problem with F1 regulations

[Tallgeese]

My own problem with F1 regulations can be divided likeso:



Poor pointing system[/*:m:fz0ta0tb]
Engine (x2 races) rule[/*:m:fz0ta0tb]
Too many regulations on manufacturers[/*:m:fz0ta0tb]
When you think about it, the pointing system is too generous. Rather than being 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (for the top eight) it should revised back to its original format of 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 (for the top six) although I am at a loss to decide if FL (Fastest Lap) or Pole Position should be given a point or half point, but I do think that the previous system would be superior.

On the engine issue, I think that while reliability has improve tremendously, one must remember that F1 engines are fragile hardware & drivers are urged to make the most of them. As such, aggressive driving &/or over-taking is not encouraged as it places too much stress on the engine. A driver may push the engine to the limit & realise that he can change it in the next race will push much harder. However, remember, the pointing system is too generous as well!

As for point, three, one must ask, why should there be one tyre supplier? Shouldn't there be several to facilitate competition? On top of that, why should there be groove tyres rather than slicks? Why must teams be forced to forgo traction control? Why must teams be forced not to have active suspension or DBW (Drive By Wire) or the ground-effect & so on?

If the answer is 'to control costs' then the counter-answer should be, 'then those shouldn't be in F1 anyway!' afterall, when you think about it, F1 is as much about the constructors as it is about the racers! Besides, who could stop Williams in the 1992 - 1995 & then in 1997? Williams with active-suspension, DRW, ABS, & of course, semi-automatic gearboxes & the powerful Renault engines (not to mention superb aerodynamics) beat much larger constructors (McLaren or Ferrari) with smaller budgets!!!!!!


I say, "BRING BACK THE GOOD OLD DAYS!"

[ShiftingGears]

I for one, do not want cars with technologies that make it easier for the drivers. So I'm happy with no active suspension, traction control, ABS etc etc. For me it's about the best drivers racing the fastest cars, and not merely a parade of technology.

[ShiftingGears]

My own problem with F1 regulations can be divided likeso:



Poor pointing system[/*:m:11iyff9t]
Engine (x2 races) rule[/*:m:11iyff9t]
Too many regulations on manufacturers[/*:m:11iyff9t]
When you think about it, the pointing system is too generous. Rather than being 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (for the top eight) it should revised back to its original format of 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 (for the top six) although I am at a loss to decide if FL (Fastest Lap) or Pole Position should be given a point or half point, but I do think that the previous system would be superior.

On the engine issue, I think that while reliability has improve tremendously, one must remember that F1 engines are fragile hardware & drivers are urged to make the most of them. As such, aggressive driving &/or over-taking is not encouraged as it places too much stress on the engine. A driver may push the engine to the limit & realise that he can change it in the next race will push much harder. However, remember, the pointing system is too generous as well!

As for point, three, one must ask, why should there be one tyre supplier? Shouldn't there be several to facilitate competition? On top of that, why should there be groove tyres rather than slicks? Why must teams be forced to forgo traction control? Why must teams be forced not to have active suspension or DBW (Drive By Wire) or the ground-effect & so on?

If the answer is 'to control costs' then the counter-answer should be, 'then those shouldn't be in F1 anyway!' afterall, when you think about it, F1 is as much about the constructors as it is about the racers! Besides, who could stop Williams in the 1992 - 1995 & then in 1997? Williams with active-suspension, DRW, ABS, & of course, semi-automatic gearboxes & the powerful Renault engines (not to mention superb aerodynamics) beat much larger constructors (McLaren or Ferrari) with smaller budgets!!!!!!


I say, "BRING BACK THE GOOD OLD DAYS!"

To answer your question on ground effects and innovation and so on, I think some people who create these rules are
a) Stupid
b) Scared that innovations that decrease laptimes will make the sport dangerous (heaven forbid!)

To expand on my previous point, I think the technological battles can make the sport more exciting and unpredictable, but I'd draw the line at the point where it starts taking away the spectacle of F1 driving and racing. Which is why the 2009 regulations are a good thing.

Also, the 2009 regulations allow some degree of ground effect, I think. The regs should be on the internet somewhere.

[aryan]

While I agree that the current point system is flawed in that it doesn't differentiate enough between the winner and the runner up, I think awarding points to just the top 6 is a mistake. We need to award points to the top 8 IMO.

I don't understand this antagonism towards two engine race rule. On the one hand we want new entrants in F1 and want F1 to be in such a state that people can join in, and on the other hand we are against all budget reductions rules? I've read interview after interview with team principals that tht two race per engine rule is saving them millions of dollars. Why is it exactly bad?

Those of you you are under the illision that it is F1's business to be as fast as possible are sadly mistaken. It is F1's business to be as fast as possible within a set of rules.

[aryan]

I for one, do not want cars with technologies that make it easier for the drivers.

Manual, as in real manual 'boxes then, anyone?

They are IMO the single thing that can make the sport more interesting, increase overtaking opportunities (drivers make more mistakes) AND reduce speed.

[Bruce D]

What? And make these $1-million-a-race bunch of babies actually drive a car?? Are you mad?!?!?!

:P

[cosmicpanda]

My own problem with F1 regulations can be divided likeso:



Poor pointing system[/*:m:2m46ou7j]
Engine (x2 races) rule[/*:m:2m46ou7j]
Too many regulations on manufacturers[/*:m:2m46ou7j]
When you think about it, the pointing system is too generous. Rather than being 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (for the top eight) it should revised back to its original format of 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 (for the top six) although I am at a loss to decide if FL (Fastest Lap) or Pole Position should be given a point or half point, but I do think that the previous system would be superior.

On the engine issue, I think that while reliability has improve tremendously, one must remember that F1 engines are fragile hardware & drivers are urged to make the most of them. As such, aggressive driving &/or over-taking is not encouraged as it places too much stress on the engine. A driver may push the engine to the limit & realise that he can change it in the next race will push much harder. However, remember, the pointing system is too generous as well!

As for point, three, one must ask, why should there be one tyre supplier? Shouldn't there be several to facilitate competition? On top of that, why should there be groove tyres rather than slicks? Why must teams be forced to forgo traction control? Why must teams be forced not to have active suspension or DBW (Drive By Wire) or the ground-effect & so on?

If the answer is 'to control costs' then the counter-answer should be, 'then those shouldn't be in F1 anyway!' afterall, when you think about it, F1 is as much about the constructors as it is about the racers! Besides, who could stop Williams in the 1992 - 1995 & then in 1997? Williams with active-suspension, DRW, ABS, & of course, semi-automatic gearboxes & the powerful Renault engines (not to mention superb aerodynamics) beat much larger constructors (McLaren or Ferrari) with smaller budgets!!!!!!


I say, "BRING BACK THE GOOD OLD DAYS!"

You have failed to consider some things, I think. Firstly, you haven't given a valid reason as to why you think that the point system should be changed.

I think that the engine change rule is alright since, as you say, reliability is good and engines can last the distance without too much compromise. Since they've been designed like that I don't think there's a problem.

Having multiple tyre suppliers would not encourage level competition because one tyre would be faster than the other; therefore whoever's not on that tyre would be instantly disadvantaged. I think that they are returning to slicks, so you should be happy. Why is traction control a good idea?

[Tallgeese]

I for one, do not want cars with technologies that make it easier for the drivers. So I'm happy with no active suspension, traction control, ABS etc etc. For me it's about the best drivers racing the fastest cars, and not merely a parade of technology.


I disagree.


F1 is about the best drivers in the world in the best cars, & is as much as battle between constructors (not teams) as it is a battle between the drivers or 'teams' because in F1 every team is a constructor. As Eccelstone once said, "if you have customer cars you will have four Ferraris & four McLarens" & we don't want that, we want to know who is the best driver/constructor.

If we wanted to find out who is the best driver, we'd simply put them in a single car (or better still standardise every component) & engine etc. That may be fine for GP2 or F3, or even IRL but at F1 it's a different story. Montoya was a fierce driver but poor at a technical level, where Schumacher was a complete package. For all the Montoya fans who say, "if he was in a Ferrari" should remember that Schumacher's input when into the development of that Ferrari as much as Montoya's went into the Williams-BMW.

As a constructor, I wan to produce the best possible car, & I want to spend what I have to spend in order to do so without going bankrupt. Williams developed the DBW system, active suspension over a period of three years (including its perfection) & in the end it got results (from 1992 onwards) despite working on a much smaller budget than Ferrari or McLaren. Innovation sometimes wins out over brute-force solutions. For example I wouldn't want KERS or Hybrid systems UNLESS I thought it would make my car go faster, not for the sake of having it.

[Tallgeese]

You have failed to consider some things, I think. Firstly, you haven't given a valid reason as to why you think that the point system should be changed.

Because winning is everything. As Senna once said, "Coming second means you are the first of the ones to lose" & a 4-point gap between first & second makes it much more intense. To be sure it also means that someone who is too far ahead of the pack would be hard to stop. To know that you've lost 4 points at second & 6 points at third will make you push harder.


I think that the engine change rule is alright since, as you say, reliability is good and engines can last the distance without too much compromise. Since they've been designed like that I don't think there's a problem.

I disagree.

No matter how reliable they get, a 19,000 RPM machine running on petrol isn't going to last (& following from the first issue of the pointing system) why would I push harder if I know I'm getting more points than I deserve?

A gas-turbine (as Lotus experimented with in the 1970s) supplied by Pratt & Whitney could generate much more hp & could last an astonishing 600 race-distances (compare that to a petrol engine) but suffered from high fuel consumption & especially problematic consequences in a crash! The logic of a two-race rule is like suggesting we use gas-turbine engines (with a freeze) to ensure we can apply a 600 race rule!

Yes, the two-race rule has helped improve reliability but the cost is, when my engine is designed to last 620km (taking into account free practice) & is somewhat under-powered as a result, I can't push hard enough without being told to "save your engine!" so I'm not likely to push as hard as I would otherwise. Prior to this (in my view needless) rule engines could last 310-330km & a failure was an unusual incident.


Having multiple tyre suppliers would not encourage level competition because one tyre would be faster than the other; therefore whoever's not on that tyre would be instantly disadvantaged. I think that they are returning to slicks, so you should be happy. Why is traction control a good idea?

TCS doesn't (in my view) make a major difference. In my own experience I found that the difference is simply a matter of getting used to, but adapting to lack of TCS is harder than going into a car with TCS. From my perspective (as a constructor) I want my driver to coax the maximum from what I have supplied him & to the limit, where as a fan I want to see more intense competition, & ultimately the better TCS will be a factor.

As for tyres, yes, intensity in competition must be extended to the tyre wars. I mean, Ferrari despite using Bridgestone POTENZA won over teams using the superior Michellins, & even by the end of 2006 the Ferrari 248 (used by Michael Schumacher) was clearly out-pacing the Renault R26. I really don't think that the issue of tyres is as big a deal as some make it sound.






While I agree that the current point system is flawed in that it doesn't differentiate enough between the winner and the runner up, I think awarding points to just the top 6 is a mistake. We need to award points to the top 8 IMO.

How?



I don't understand this antagonism towards two engine race rule. On the one hand we want new entrants in F1 and want F1 to be in such a state that people can join in, and on the other hand we are against all budget reductions rules? I've read interview after interview with team principals that tht two race per engine rule is saving them millions of dollars. Why is it exactly bad?

Although I explained why (that is drivers can't push the engines & cars to the limits) I also added that the incentive is diminished further by the points system. As a racer (& a fan) & even a constructor, I want to win, & winning means I have to push the car & engine to its very limits. Yes, the quality & robustness of the engine (& of course power) is limited, but in the end, we keep improving & improving until we can push harder.

What I don't get (& still don't understand) is why the contradictory notion of the 'engine-freeze' & the 'two-race' rule isn't reviewed. On one hand, you want me to keep my engine for two races, on the other you won't let me improve my engine, & turning reliability into the sole objective of development is next to impossible without deeper re-design, R&D & technology poured in.

It's like having a football (soccer) team & demanding that everybody wears metal shoes to 'narrow the competition' between the players!

If I can't afford 18 race-spec engines, then I really shouldn't be in F1, & if I can't afford to make them (as an engine constructor) reliable enough to last beyond the race distance, I shouldn't be an F1 maker in F1. It won't make a difference no matter how much it saves.



Those of you you are under the illision that it is F1's business to be as fast as possible are sadly mistaken. It is F1's business to be as fast as possible within a set of rules.

I miss the 'good old days' when constructors had the will to pour money into R&D & of course technology to develop the best cars.

[ioan]

The biggest regulation problems in F1 are the ones that allow for all those little wings and what more that clutter the bodies of these cars.
The next big problem is the SC rules about pitlane usage.

As far as technology is concerned it looks OK for me.

[aryan]

How?


12,8,6,5,4,3,2,1 perhaps?
or 12,9,6,5,4,3,2,1 perhaps...

Obviously the details can be debated. What I'm suggesting is awarding 8 cars with points and yet differentiating between the top 2.





What I don't get (& still don't understand) is why the contradictory notion of the 'engine-freeze' & the 'two-race' rule isn't reviewed. On one hand, you want me to keep my engine for two races, on the other you won't let me improve my engine



Engine freeze and two race rule do not seem contradictory to me. Actually they both seem quite complementary, the objective being to reduce costs.


I miss the 'good old days' when constructors had the will to pour money into R&D & of course technology to develop the best cars.


And you'll find that in your 'good old days' constructors did not pour money into R&D as much as they are doing now, and the cars were awfully slower and much less reliable than today's cars.

Technology advances, but people are stuck in their nostalogics

[aryan]

For example I wouldn't want KERS or Hybrid systems UNLESS I thought it would make my car go faster, not for the sake of having it.

And this is where you don't understand F1. It's a buisness. It's a TV show. It's not a race to space. It needs to sell. It needs TV ratings, and thus it needs to take care of its image. That's why it needs green-looking technologies such as KERS. So that sponsors would want to associate with its image. There's a market there. Going 2 sec a lap faster, or indeed 5 sec a lap faster would not intself lead to increases in revenue.

[ioan]

12,8,6,5,4,3,2,1 perhaps?

Would definitely be better than what we have now


or 12,9,6,5,4,3,2,1 perhaps...

Doesn't award more points for 1st over 2nd than it does for 2nd over 3rd.

I wouldn't hold my breath over this changing anytime soon.
This system was brought in because a certain MS won the title after the Hungarian GP in 2002, with lots of GPs to go.
And a certain BE wasn't happy at all, because less people would care about the remaining races.

Having only 2 points advantage for win over 2nd placed means that if one driver wins every race and another comes 2nd in every race, the advantage of the first would be of only 36 points at the end of the season, this means that people would lose interest only with 3 races to go.

If it was the old 4 points difference per race than it would have been 72 points and 7 races to go would have been potentially lost, and lots of money wouldn't have been directed to we all know who's pockets.

[jens]

I'm really not annoyed by points system in F1 (it's other story with WRC as there aren't many competitive entries anyway). Look at other series, like NASCAR. Their systems reward a win even less, but can't hear complaints. Certainly at least Top8 or even Top10 should get points, considering the small amount of retirements these days. Top6 isn't fair in the midfield and backmarker battles. What do I mean? Somebody gets lucky in one race and finishes 3rd. Other team might be faster throughout the season, but due to lack of retirements gets only 7th and 8th places in other races and therefore loses in the WCC. IMO WCC should show the strength of teams, not luck factor and not that a few attrition races are too decisive.

I don't like 2-race engine rule. As someone on this forum once pointed out - F1 is not an endurance race. I have negative emotions about engine freeze too. It seems like that by freezing the engines they have freezed the pecking order too. Very little has seemed to change between the strenghts of the teams between 2007 and 2008. And I tell you what - I guess Renault will never make it back to the top (no surprise Alonso wants to leave them). More and more it seems to turn out that their engine arguably lacks of power especially in acceleration (recall, how easily Räikkönen passed Alonso in Turkey or how Massa blasted past Alonso at the start of Spanish GP). But due to engine freeze they really can't do much about it and are destined to continue struggling. Also the Japanese manufacturers have lost as engine development was one of their strenghts. And McLaren has won - due to Mercedes their performances used to be very much up-and-down, now they are quite constantly at the top. If the engine development could go on without restrictions, we would surely see more changes and fluctuations in teams' performances.

[ioan]

I agree that the engine freeze is utter nonsense.
The 2 or more race engine rule however does help with cutting costs on the long term, and the engine freeze was brought in to enforce that cost cutting process.

[Sleeper]

1) The points system is poor, your right there, but the only change thats needed is to increase the win value from 10 to 12 points restoring the 4 point gap from first to second place. The only reason the gap is 2 points is, as Ioan has pointd out, because Bernie doesnt want a title wrapped up too early. What hasnt been mentioned is that it wasextended to 8th place to allow the midfield teams a better chance of scoring. You moan about the reliability now (I come back to that later) but it was improving drastically in 2001 & 2 to the point where only McLaren, Ferrari and Williams were looking at scoring points. I know it looks like rewarding mediocraty, but if you look at this year, the midfield battle is very close and the current system allows for more drivers to be rewarded for driving well. I've yet to see any evidence of drivers holding back because the place ahead only offers 1 or 2 points more.

2)As I have mentioned, for most teams reliability was increasing drastically from about 2000 onwards, and after 02/3 Honda were about the only team that sufferd repeated engine failures (most failures are from the ancillary systems) and that was gone by 04/05, before the 2 race rule came in. The only thing this rule has stopped is qualy specials, which normally didnt have much of an effect anyway. The big problem is that the driver gets punished for an engine failure, why should the driver be moved half way down the grid because of this, effectively ruinning two races for them, a team penalty, say a fine or points reduction, would be much more fair.

The engine freeze is a big problem though. Jens already mentioned Renaults plight, a series lack of Torque that they have actually always had but it was previously masked by TC and was even a strength back in 04/05 (allowed for those mega getaways), and they remedy that at all now. I supect they will be the first manufacturer to go when it proves near impossible to develope a winning car with this engine. Seems completely pointless to me.

3)Do you want teams spending £1 billion per year!? Many of the advancments in the last 10-15 years have been from the electronics and software and the logical conclusion to this is that we will have cars that drive themselves. That will very definitely be the death knell for F1, who wants to watch a facless "sport". Chasing after technologies is all very well be sometimes they can be too much, ground effects were band because they cars too fast, same for turbos, alot of the electronics of the early 90s were begining to take away the skill requirment from the drivers, and this is still very much a driver orientated sport, witness sponsors putting almost as much money into personal deals with drivers as they do with teams.

[Tallgeese]

And this is where you don't understand F1. It's a buisness. It's a TV show. It's not a race to space. It needs to sell. It needs TV ratings, and thus it needs to take care of its image. That's why it needs green-looking technologies such as KERS. So that sponsors would want to associate with its image. There's a market there. Going 2 sec a lap faster, or indeed 5 sec a lap faster would not intself lead to increases in revenue.

No, F1 is about producing the fastest car on the planet within a set of regulations (a Formula) that should be limited to issues such as safety, or even dimensions of a car & engine specifications etc. If KERS makes my car go faster I will adopt it, just as I should be allowed to adopt the ground-effect (& it's banning should be on safety grounds only) or active-suspension, or even TCS etc etc.

In the past, there were no engine specifications so I could use a gas-turbine power-pack (with an astonishing 1,500hp of power & capable of lasting 600 races) but very, very thirsty, but in an era were refueling during pitstops my team wouldn't have finished races. Why shouldn't I be allowed to use (say) diesel engine if I think it's a winning formula? Why can't I use a turbo-injected engine? In the end I think teams can best decide & let 'natural selection' produce the best automobiles.

Those who argue that F1 must be technologically relevant to the automobile industry sometimes forget that stock-cars are the 'missing link' between race-cars & on-road automobiles & When you think about it, ABS is practically standard on all road-cars today, but it's banned in F1 now, as is traction control (alas for different purposes in a road-car) & of course, how are slick tyres relevant to F1? Those grooved tyres have more in common with road-tyres, so what's the logic of forcing teams changing them then?

That's why I (& others) watch F1! To find out who is the best constructor & who is the best driver.





12,8,6,5,4,3,2,1 perhaps?
or 12,9,6,5,4,3,2,1 perhaps...


Obviously the details can be debated. What I'm suggesting is awarding 8 cars with points and yet differentiating between the top 2.

12, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 seems better, but I'd much rather go back to 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1.


Engine freeze and two race rule do not seem contradictory to me. Actually they both seem quite complementary, the objective being to reduce costs.

Actually they are contradictory to producing more exciting racing. Exciting racing doesn't come on the cheap. You don't stress your engine too much when you

Consider this. Engine Freeze OR Two-Race rule. If I freeze development, then producing the same core engine will reduce in cost year after year (economies of scale) until it costs 30-50% less than the original unit. As more engines are produced the unit cost will drop & 18-race spec engines will be cheaper per unit than restricting them to 9, whereas a team may buy up to 50 engines per year for testing purposes. On the other hand, limiting the number of engines will simply raise the cost (per unit) of each engine & that is counter-productive.

On the other hand, if the engine must last two races, then you must give teams a chance to develop the engine to last 610+ km rather than 305+ km (a normal race distance) rather than freezing present specifications.



And you'll find that in your 'good old days' constructors did not pour money into R&D as much as they are doing now, and the cars were awfully slower and much less reliable than today's cars.

True, but they didn't have sponsors either. Things change, but then again they don't pour money for the sake of pouring money, teams know what they need. Toyota for instance doesn't spend $420 million per year because McLaren-Mercedes or Ferrari do, but because they see it as the best investment. They could easily raise it to $500 million maybe $600 million or more, but in the end increased burdens for diminished returns isn't worth that extra investment. That they may not be productive (lack of racing experience or even racing heritage?) as Renault, Williams or others is another issue.


Technology advances, but people are stuck in their nostalogics

Yeah, so why are these technologies banned:

ABS
TCS
DBW
Ground Effect
Active Suspension

These technologies were not allowed to advance such that the Williams-Renault FW15C is arguably the most sophisticated car to ever have raced, & is actually quite comparable to cars today at speed (assuming its engine wasn't rev-limited to 14,500 RPM if I remember correctly) where the other 3000cc V10s could do 17,000 RPM by 2000-onwards.



I'm really not annoyed by points system in F1 (it's other story with WRC as there aren't many competitive entries anyway). Look at other series, like NASCAR. Their systems reward a win even less, but can't hear complaints. Certainly at least Top8 or even Top10 should get points, considering the small amount of retirements these days. Top6 isn't fair in the midfield and backmarker battles. What do I mean? Somebody gets lucky in one race and finishes 3rd. Other team might be faster throughout the season, but due to lack of retirements gets only 7th and 8th places in other races and therefore loses in the WCC. IMO WCC should show the strength of teams, not luck factor and not that a few attrition races are too decisive.

I disagree. Luck shows as what it is. How many drivers have been lucky to start out at McLaren at its best? Some argue that Nico Rosberg or Sebastian Vettel or even Kovalainen are no less capable than Hamilton but haven't had the chance to show it. It's too early to say whether Hamilton is actually faster than Kovalainen (he did set two FLs, Hamilton has yet to set one but to his credit he has had one pole) & when one compares them it's pretty easy to say that Hamilton has a slight advantage, but Kovalainen is still in the reckoning.


I don't like 2-race engine rule. As someone on this forum once pointed out - F1 is not an endurance race. I have negative emotions about engine freeze too. It seems like that by freezing the engines they have freezed the pecking order too. Very little has seemed to change between the strenghts of the teams between 2007 and 2008. And I tell you what - I guess Renault will never make it back to the top (no surprise Alonso wants to leave them).

The only reason Renault has regressed is because when Carlos Ghoson showed up his first goal was to strip Renault of its F1 team & to put the money back to the stockholders. It's not like it costs a lot relative to Renault's size but Ghoson has a reputation & doesn't have much of a sense of of 'fun' or 'sport' in his blood. He's all about profit & money.

If I was at ING Renault I'd lash out at him for being, "dark & gloomy"


More and more it seems to turn out that their engine arguably lacks of power especially in acceleration (recall, how easily Räikkönen passed Alonso in Turkey or how Massa blasted past Alonso at the start of Spanish GP). But due to engine freeze they really can't do much about it and are destined to continue struggling.


Or how Kubica outpowered Alonso in Malaysia but then again, the start of a race isn't always indicative of a car's capabilities. Alonso was on the 'dirty side' of the track (outside the racing line) so it's not easy to maintain 2nd or 4th place in such circumstances. Keep in mind, he very nearly got the pole! Also remember that the Renault R28 is improving but Alonso can only salvage it as he didn't have enough input in its development process, where the R29 will have a lot of Alonso's input+recommendations in it. Remember, Renault have improved a lot with Alonso back but need time to close the gap.

I disagree. The RS07-2008 on the Red Bull RBR04 is faster than the Force India VJM01 (using a Ferrari 056H engine) & the Scuderia Toro Rosso STR03B (also a Ferrari 056) & even outpaced the Super Aguri SA03 & even the Renault R28 at the start of the season with both using the same engine! I don't honestly think that the Renault engine lacks power.


Also the Japanese manufacturers have lost as engine development was one of their strenghts. And McLaren has won - due to Mercedes their performances used to be very much up-and-down, now they are quite constantly at the top. If the engine development could go on without restrictions, we would surely see more changes and fluctuations in teams' performances.

Agreed with the Japanese, but it also depends how you look at it. When the new specifications (V8 2400cc & 20,000 RPM -revised to 19,000 RPM a year later) were introduced in 2006 following the V10/3000cc era the re-adaption of the (say) Ferrari 056 or Mercedes FO108 or even Renault RS26 engines from their original 055, FO110 & RS25 configurations was no easy task, least of all blending it into the chassis.

Most barely could reach 750hp in the beginning (only Cosworth's CA2006 hit 830hp but was notoriously unreliable) but now most settle at 790-795hp but Renault struck first by reaching (it was rumoured) 780hp & maintained reliability whereas Ferrari's 056 still had a lot of catching up to do, & the Scuderia were in an awkward position at the start of 2006 with an under-powered car, & a huge point gap. The Mercedes engine in particular offered McLaren impressive speed, & some podiums & even FLs but was unreliable, until the last race in Brazil where the 2008-spec derivative of the FO108 was installed on the MP4-21 of 2006 did it show promise in reliability too.

[Tallgeese]

1) 3)Do you want teams spending £1 billion per year!? Many of the advancments in the last 10-15 years have been from the electronics and software and the logical conclusion to this is that we will have cars that drive themselves. That will very definitely be the death knell for F1, who wants to watch a facless "sport". Chasing after technologies is all very well be sometimes they can be too much, ground effects were band because they cars too fast, same for turbos, alot of the electronics of the early 90s were begining to take away the skill requirment from the drivers, and this is still very much a driver orientated sport, witness sponsors putting almost as much money into personal deals with drivers as they do with teams.

No, F1 is NOT as much about the drivers as other open-wheel/single-seat or really motor-sports. Because it's a battle of the constructor's it's about who can produce the better car. The only major times you can buy are the engine/gearbox, but the issue of removing skills from the drivers tends to forget

When Nigel Mansell stormed to victory in 1992 against Ayrton Senna (who came 4th that year) he did very well with the Williams-Renault FW14B where the Honda engine equipping McLaren wasn't the most competitive as it had been before. The FW14B (now with the perfected active suspension, ABS, semi-automatic gearbox, & DBW system) was innovative, & had Nigel Mansell (an ace by any standard) behind the wheel with Riccardo Patrese in support (who came second & only scored one win) with a car that had less money to work with than McLaren or Ferrari.

While Honda sought to improve power+reliability, McLaren was busy looking for a semi-automatic gearbox to replace the traditional manual 'clutch & stick' & an active-suspension system (that Benetton & Ferrari were also working on) to catch up to Williams' three years of hard work & patience. Naturally money can accelerate R&D but infinate amounts of money don't catch up on time.

Suppose I got access to BMW Sauber's engine & if I spent £100 million & we were 1.5 seconds behind them per lap, & then put £200 million & discovered that we're now 1.1 seconds behind, & with £300 million we are 1.07 seconds behind, I'd say that I'm willing to spend £100 million, & wait till next year to see how things develop as we have time constraints. Next year, if we cannot catch up then we have a real issue, but if we are catching up then I'll have to evaluate (based on forecasts & progress) whether we should boost out budget or not. If we are coming 4th (behind BMW Sauber but ahead of Renault & Williams-Toyota) now then I'll say we're doing well, but need more time.

Any team would spent £1 billion if it was going to win & profit at the same time. Neither Ferrari nor McLaren-Mercedes or even BMW Sauber or the other teams have a 'win at all costs' mindset. If you gave me £1 billion I would do a lot, maybe even start my own F1 team IF it was profitable, but I won't throw money in an empty pot, & neither does any other team. To make it 'cheaper' so that we can have 22 or 24 (or 26 or even 28?) racers isn't right. If we end up with 16 racers, so be it.

[ShiftingGears]

Yeah, so why are these technologies banned:

ABS
TCS
Active Suspension


Because they're boring, and take away from the spectacle of seeing the drivers actually drive the car. I don't miss them in the slightest.

[Tallgeese]

Because they're boring, and take away from the spectacle of seeing the drivers actually drive the car. I don't miss them in the slightest.

No they're not boring. They make cars more competitive by making them faster & push drivers against each other to keep pushing the limits.

[ShiftingGears]

No they're not boring. They make cars more competitive by making them faster & push drivers against each other to keep pushing the limits.

They make them faster, but so what? Seeing fast cars driving on rails isn't as spectacular as seeing slightly slower cars going through a corner slightly sideways. Drivers are trying to drive the fastest they can all the time, so technology has nothing to do with it. No traction control has made for better viewing without question.

[truefan72]

I have negative emotions about engine freeze too. It seems like that by freezing the engines they have freezed the pecking order too. Very little has seemed to change between the strenghts of the teams between 2007 and 2008. And I tell you what - I guess Renault will never make it back to the top (no surprise Alonso wants to leave them). More and more it seems to turn out that their engine arguably lacks of power especially in acceleration (recall, how easily Räikkönen passed Alonso in Turkey or how Massa blasted past Alonso at the start of Spanish GP). But due to engine freeze they really can't do much about it and are destined to continue struggling. Also the Japanese manufacturers have lost as engine development was one of their strenghts. And McLaren has won - due to Mercedes their performances used to be very much up-and-down, now they are quite constantly at the top. If the engine development could go on without restrictions, we would surely see more changes and fluctuations in teams' performances.


:up: couldn't agree more

[aryan]

No, F1 is about producing the fastest car on the planet within a set of regulations

Let us disagree right here in our outlook to what F1 is.

Let me quote one David Coulthard who has been in this show/race for a couple of years:

[quote="DC"]
The root cause of the media backlash is the perception – in the public eye at least – that Formula 1 is still a sport.


If you actually called it what the teams consider it to be, which is a business, then it would be easier to understand and accept the actions of the people involved.


Ron Dennis is running a business]
http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=David_Coulthard&id=40341

[Tallgeese]

They make them faster, but so what? Seeing fast cars driving on rails isn't as spectacular as seeing slightly slower cars going through a corner slightly sideways. Drivers are trying to drive the fastest they can all the time, so technology has nothing to do with it. No traction control has made for better viewing without question.

Although this may conflict with what I said before, I don't believe that TCS really makes a difference once you get used to it. It's more like when you transition to TCS that you'd push harder & in the end it's about the constructors as much as it is about the drivers. Why should the Formula ban so many technologies? As a constructor (assuming I was a constructor) I want to build a car that I think is a winner, otherwise I shouldn't be in F1. I may choose to spend €600 million over a three year period to perfect the technology.

Suppose I owned facilities & a team & discovered a new ground-breaking piece of technology (on par with the ground-effect or active suspension) & suddenly the car was 1-1.5 seconds faster per lap than a Ferrari or McLaren even with a supposedly lesser driver. In the end, it's not only about the drivers, it's about constructors, if you want a series where it's about the drivers it's best to watch a spec-series (F3, GP2 etc).

FIA's FOM steps in & cannot find a clause where I violated the rules & then declares "NO! NO! NO! It's illegal from now on!" & all of a sudden years of work & dedication have gone down the drain & my team has to revert to a 'conventional' car. Is that fair? Of course it isn't. I am willing to spend the money, I should be allowed free reign to give my driver the best possible car. I want to produce a car where a debutant would win his first race.

Why should I be denied that?

In the 1992, Williams-Renault's FW14B was so far ahead of the pack that Nigel Mansell exploited its now perfected technologies with ruthless efficiency against Ayrton Senna, whose McLaren-Honda MP4/6B was no longer the most powerful, & the smarter technology of Williams (despite its smaller budget) all but negated the power superiority of the McLaren-Honda. Of course, the more powerful Renault engine played a major role, but it was the high-technology gadgets that ultimately defeated McLaren.

What would the solution be? Simply to say to Honda, "give me more power!" (Wait, the engine freeze!) or to work on superior aerodynamics (limited development being allowed before/after races) during a limited testing period coupled with a budget cap!!!! In the end you have to expand everywhere, & to limit F1 to one scope of development (aerodynamics in this case) is really appalling. Suddenly they (FOM) say, "V6 biodiesel turbos with 10,000 RPM & KERS are manditory & slicks are being reintroduced" & everybody is back to square one!





Let us disagree right here in our outlook to what F1 is.

Let me quote one David Coulthard who has been in this show/race for a couple of years:


http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=David_Coulthard&id=40341



I disagree with Coulthard's comments.

Does Ron Dennis really oppose the engine freeze? Does he oppose limited testing periods? Does he oppose budget capping?

McLaren-Mercedes do have the money & know when to cap their own budgets. To say that a team like Honda, Toyota, Red Bull/Toro Rosso, or Force India should be given a chance to catch up with these rules is (in my view) just crazy. McLaren-Mercedes have something they all don't have & that is experience & heritage, & just narrowing options will widen the gap, at least in the short-run.

[K-Pu]

Well, another BIG problem with regulations is that they´re changing constantly, although this happens mostly with non-technical rules.

And of course there are technical rules that are pretty stupid. I think no one will miss grooved tyres after 2009, and if by chance they scrap the engine freeze IMO we (the fans) will be a lot happier.

With the scoring system, I think the new one is better than the old one because rewarding only 6 racers seems quite unfair with the midfield. Being 7th or 8th in a 20 car field is not "that" bad, and that doesn´t reward consistency on midfield teams. For example, if a team spends all the season between 7th and 12th gets no points, but if by chance some team which is at the back of the grid gets a point, they´ll be ahead of the sad little one which was on the brink of scoring race after race. This is an extreme example, but clear enough. Maybe I´m an outsider, but I prefer the Moto GP scoring system.

The single tire supplier... it depends. If a supplier is waaay off the pace that won´t be good for anyone. But if they´re more or less tied, or maybe if they have certain strong points... Quite unrealistic, but dreaming is free. If I had to choose, I´d prefer more tire suppliers, just to see different things on track and how they behave. I don´t want all of them being race-winners or world dominators, but it´s one more thing to take into account.

[Sleeper]

Tallgeese, have you actually thought about the consequencies of a completely open formula, the cars would be so fast that they wouldnt be able to race, as it would be simply impossible to build tracks capable of supporting them. Think about it, the 1.5 litre V6 turbos of the 80's had 1500hp, how much do you think they would have now, 3-4000bhp? Ground effects were band because cornering speeds were climing drastically in what was still a very dangerous era, and the techs of the early 90's were being banned because, in Martin Brundles own words, "were forgetting how to drive". They slammed on the brakes, turned the wheel and planeted the throttle taking away all the inherent skill of feeling what a car is doing at any given time.

You also seem to foget that the drivers championship has been around for nearly 10 years longer than the constructors, proving that this is a sport more driver focused than team (only Ferrari garners the support that a driver would normally have).

[xyz123]

I do agree that the points system needs to encourage drivers to go for it but the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 is no longer suitable. Now many more cars finish a race so it is only right that points should go down further then the top 6.

The best points system I have seen in my opinion is the one used for the British Touring Car Championship in the 1990s. 24-18-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1 to the top 10 finishers.

On the subject of allowing teams to spend whatever they like on whatever they want, that is a very dangerous (for the health of the series) path to go down. If nothing is done to control the amount spent by the richer teams then the smaller teams are priced out of the series and leave. With the smaller teams have gone the teams that were the midfield runners are then the backmarkers, which leads to them pulling out. Eventually you are left with just the two or three richest teams, who then pull out themselves due to lack of competition killing the series.

In the last fifteen years this exact situation has lead to the demise of three major racing series, Group C Sportscars, the original DTM and 1990s 2 litre Super Touring formula for Touring Cars.

The replacement series for all three, the FIA GT championship, the new DTM and the current Touring Car regulations are all aimed at allowing privateer teams to be able to compete. They are the mainstay of the entries and will always enter as long as they can afford to. Manufacturers always come and go. Historically there have always been peaks and troughs of manufacturer involvement in any series. You need the privateer teams to make up numbers when manufacturer involvement is low.

[Tallgeese]

Tallgeese, have you actually thought about the consequencies of a completely open formula, the cars would be so fast that they wouldnt be able to race, as it would be simply impossible to build tracks capable of supporting them.

I don't support a completely open Formula, I believe that some regulation is needed, but the question is, 'what' regulation & how much. I don't believe that many technologies should be banned, & I think that FOM should not be concerned with promoting 'close competition' through the regulations that it has introduced.

The Schumacher era came & went, & he was too dominant for too long in the Ferrari, now things have narrowed down a bit, & will continue to do so naturally, but to ban TCS, & insist on grooved tyres, as well as reduced engine specifications & movement to ban small wings (canards) & what not makes one wonder what will the future F1 look like. Too much standardisation in the name of 'closer competition & reduced operating costs' is not a productive way to go about it.

If you or I were manufacturers (constructors) we'd produce a car that was capable of winning on any given track (hopefully with any driver) & speed/acceleration are just few of the factors to consider, we also have to consider downforce & handling & so on. Even if I was given raw power I have to pay for it with a fuel penalty & other problems may be that extra power doesn't always improve on speed/acceleration (Law of Diminishing Returns) yes, if I go from 1,000hp to 1,500hp my performance (speed/acceleration) does not improve by 50%, & may even regress.

Yes I agree on limiting engine size & specifications (& even space) but I also say that manufacturers know what they need/don't need, & there is such a thing as too much power.



Think about it, the 1.5 litre V6 turbos of the 80's had 1500hp, how much do you think they would have now, 3-4000bhp? Ground effects were band because cornering speeds were climing drastically in what was still a very dangerous era, and the techs of the early 90's were being banned because, in Martin Brundles own words, "were forgetting how to drive".

No, he Brundle was forgetting how to drive (& his career was largely undistinguished) I doubt he'd have done well no matter what regulations exist. Besides, 1500cc V6s turbos running at 4000hp is excessive & would result in too much waste in power (the KERS should be useful there) but even then, extra power doesn't always mean superior results, especially with a minimum weight of 605kg for the car (& driver+fuel).

Safety must always come first but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to reduce speed or justify other procedures.


They slammed on the brakes, turned the wheel and planeted the throttle taking away all the inherent skill of feeling what a car is doing at any given time.

My response is, "Sooooooooo?"

As a constructor, if I have the money & will, I want to construct a car that will defeat everybody with anybody behind the wheel. Naturally that's easier said than done, but as a constructor I have limited funds & have to decide, "do I produce the best possible car, or do I hire the best driver?" & ultimately it's a compromise between many forces on the car.


You also seem to forget that the drivers championship has been around for nearly 10 years longer than the constructors, proving that this is a sport more driver focused than team (only Ferrari garners the support that a driver would normally have).

But F1 is unique in that every team is a constructor & MUST design+build everything on the car (except the engine+gearbox that they are allowed to buy) whereas, if you begin standardising the ECU (as they have) then disc brakes, & soon the front-wing & banning canads & tails you all of a sudden take the competition away from the constructors.

I believe that F3, & GP2/GP2 Asia & possibly A1GP (GP3?) should be about driver skill & should not make use of TCS & so on, & use spec-series chassis, engines etc, but that once you get into F1, your car is as good as your constructor & your input to develop it & is of course more automated & much faster in he process.

[ShiftingGears]

My response is, "Sooooooooo?"


Feel free to invent some sport with a squillion gadgets where driver talent is next to completely insignificant, and then you and three other people can enjoy watching that.


F1 for a lot of people is more about seeing the spectacle seeing the best drivers DRIVE the fastest cars to the limit. Technology is good, yes, as it makes the constructors championship more exciting. But I don't agree that driver aids or cars relying too much on aerodynamic grip is healthy for the sport at all, because it takes away an element of unpredictability and spectacle in the sport. Most of the people watch because they are racing fans, and would much rather see racing, than merely a parade of technology.

[aryan]

Feel free to invent some sport with a squillion gadgets where driver talent is next to completely insignificant, and then you and three other people can enjoy watching that.



After reading ALL of Tallgeese's posts in this forum (and believe me when I say ALL!) that's exactly the taste it has left in my mouth. The kind of changes he is suggesting would lead to totally financially unsustainable borefests with cars too fast to be safe, and teams dominating for an entire season ala 2002 and 2004.

Formula 1 has made slow but gradual moves to correct itself since then, with the new quali format, measures to reduce spending, control tyre, engine freeze, banning of electronic aids, etc., and if the last year and this year are anything to judge in terms of both races and championships, it is moving in the right direction. I'm waiting for 2009 to take this even one step further.

[Tallgeese]

Feel free to invent some sport with a squillion gadgets where driver talent is next to completely insignificant, and then you and three other people can enjoy watching that.

That's not the idea. If I was a constructor (& I wish I was) I wouldn't threaten to split from FIA or FOM at all. A split is never in the better interests of F1, & times will change for the better, especially after the new era comes in (I hope) but I would demand that FOMA push for a common consensus. For instance, if F3 & GP2 (or F2 as it may become) are about driver skill, then F1 is meant to be the ultimate challenge because it's about the best possible car that a constructor can produce.

Driving flat out (with all the gadgets & technology applied) to beat somebody should produce exciting racing. I don't have to battle with the car, or systems I should focus purely on the bloke ahead of me & in crossing the line first. F3, GP2 are where a driver picked up the skills, F1 should be where it's all about the best possible cars at the hands of the best drivers who have come from F3 & GP2 (& I wouldn't even consider an IRL driver) to race.


F1 for a lot of people is more about seeing the spectacle seeing the best drivers DRIVE the fastest cars to the limit. Technology is good, yes, as it makes the constructors championship more exciting. But I don't agree that driver aids or cars relying too much on aerodynamic grip is healthy for the sport at all, because it takes away an element of unpredictability and spectacle in the sport. Most of the people watch because they are racing fans, and would much rather see racing, than merely a parade of technology.


I disagree, I believe that driver-aids & aerodynamic grip & all the other technologies make F1 even more exciting. Because drivers will now not be battling the car, they will be battling each other.

You make a good case but you forget that Michael Schumacher was simply the dominator & I believe that the spectacle was lost not because of the rules but because he was just too good. Unless another Schumacher comes around things will go back to the way they were in the pre-Schumacher era. He didn't win because of the regulations or technology, he won because he was just that good & Ferrari had the will, know-how & money to put in, where BMW Williams, McLaren-Mercedes & Renault put up spirited challenges but simply didn't have the man behind the machine for one reason or another.

Had Alain Prost, Nigel Mansell or Nelson Piquet Jnr never been born, Ayrton Senna would have been a 5-8 time world champion (who knows he probably would even have retired early because F1 was too easy) but Schumacher had no rivals for so long & in the end, the rules were bent against him. That & the sport was no where near as high-tech as it is today. Likewise, if Alain Prost's, or Mansell or Piquet's rivals were never born they would have been Schumacher's in their time.

[Tallgeese]

After reading ALL of Tallgeese's posts in this forum (and believe me when I say ALL!) that's exactly the taste it has left in my mouth. The kind of changes he is suggesting would lead to totally financially unsustainable borefests with cars too fast to be safe, and teams dominating for an entire season ala 2002 and 2004.

Formula 1 has made slow but gradual moves to correct itself since then, with the new quali format, measures to reduce spending, control tyre, engine freeze, banning of electronic aids, etc., and if the last year and this year are anything to judge in terms of both races and championships, it is moving in the right direction. I'm waiting for 2009 to take this even one step further.

The new regulations are like a (say) Boxing Match where a select few (& one in particular) dominate. What the new FOM regulations do is suggest that we should limit their training routine & so on, & even fight with heavy arm-rings made of lead to 'make matches more exciting' & 'less expensive' & so on. That's what I oppose.

[K-Pu]

When a driver can go flat-out and dominates, the result is always the same:

Boring racing.

History has shown that having the best car is not the same as getting the best racing. If your car is so good that you don´t even have to "drive" it, there´s no point in making it race. Better put it into a simulator with the other "perfect" cars and let´s see which one would win.

From the constructor´s point of view, I´d also prefer my car to be invincible, but since I´m a fan, I prefer the cars to be driven, dominated by the driver. I like to see how a pilot has to keep on track a lot of horsepower with very little weight, and with no driving aids. That doesn´t mean we should take away safety, because scrapping the active suspension has been one of the best decissions by the FIA.

An example of "excess of technology". Nowadays we can clearly see what an excess of grip can do: no overtaking. Take away the grip from F1 cars and you get a race like last one, or like any wet races in the last years. By some strange whim of destiny, these races have been the most exciting ones. Mysteriously these cars become things hard to drive, not steamrollers going on rails. I remember 2004 when looking at a Ferrari and a Minardi was like watching two different races. The Ferrari was completely stable, quiet, effective... And the Minardi was a wild boar going from side to side of the track, bumping, sliding...

Now rules are trying to avoid "all conquering cars", for the sake of spectacle. We are the hardocre fans of F1, and even us think that it´s not good for the sport that a single car destroys all the field. I remember when people feared Schumacher could humiliate the F1 by winning all the races in a season... Is that good?

[Sleeper]

The new regulations are like a (say) Boxing Match where a select few (& one in particular) dominate. What the new FOM regulations do is suggest that we should limit their training routine & so on, & even fight with heavy arm-rings made of lead to 'make matches more exciting' & 'less expensive' & so on. That's what I oppose.
Clearly you havnt understood the technical changes for next year. KERS is a "green" tech thats been brought in to try and forstall any attempt to have motorsport banned because its a needles polutunt. It might be a red hearing, but its perception that counts here. The other changes are all to the areo and tryes with the point of shifting the grip from aero more to mechanical and therefor improving the chances of overtaking, though I doubt it will make it significantly easier.

I believe that there can definitely be a balance between technical development and quality racing but it has to be done right and, since you cant unlearn anything thats already been doen, its going to require close scrutiny and regulating. Unlike you, the rest of us want to see a race, not a one man domination run. (BTW, Schumi only dominated because he was much better than Rubens and Ferrari were the only team that werent making large changes throughout their managment and departments, which inevitably leads to downturns and period of learning to work together to get the best).

[Tallgeese]

Clearly you havnt understood the technical changes for next year. KERS is a "green" tech thats been brought in to try and forstall any attempt to have motorsport banned because its a needles polutunt. It might be a red hearing, but its perception that counts here. The other changes are all to the areo and tryes with the point of shifting the grip from aero more to mechanical and therefor improving the chances of overtaking, though I doubt it will make it significantly easier.

As I see it, if KERS is capable of making the cars go faster (& the purpose of F1 is to make the cars go faster) then it should be introduced or considered. If it's a muscle-hybrid concept (as it appears to be) it doesn't wholly address the issues, but an F1 car with more fuel efficiency has huge (positive) implications for normal roadcars. Keeping F1 technologically close to the automobile industry is seen by some as a major objective.

As for prospects of banning F1, they wouldn't dare!!!!


I believe that there can definitely be a balance between technical development and quality racing but it has to be done right and, since you cant unlearn anything thats already been doen, its going to require close scrutiny and regulating. Unlike you, the rest of us want to see a race, not a one man domination run. (BTW, Schumi only dominated because he was much better than Rubens and Ferrari were the only team that werent making large changes throughout their managment and departments, which inevitably leads to downturns and period of learning to work together to get the best).

That is your viewpoint & that of many (including Bernie Eccelstone it seems) but the truth is I think that technical development wasn't the issue that killed the quality of racing. Schumacher was simply too good no matter where the regulations went. Ony in 2002 & 2004 the Ferrari was way ahead of the pack (on a technical level) considering how Barichellio came second on both occasions (the highest he's ever been ranked) & the tightness of the competitions in other years (especially 2001 & 2003) Schumacher was still edged through.

Why is that in the 1980s & even 1990s that no driver proved too dominant no matter what regulations? As I said before, (as a Senna fan) had Prost, Mansell or Piquet never existed then Senna would have won 6-7 titles titles, perhaps more. On the other hand, Williams (with a much lower budget than McLaren or Ferrari) produced cars that were not only more advanced (& automated) but were also ground-breaking. Money is not the issue it is made out to be. Money is an issue if you are not successful in most cases.

Toyota can afford to spend twice as much as it does on F1, but spends a certain amount. Doubling what they spend won't double performance or even enhance it. On the other hand, Lotus or Brabham never attained the success of McLaren, possibly because many of their technological concepts (that cost a lot of R&D & manpower) were banned such as the ground-effect (both Lotus & Brabham pioneered such technologies) & thus years of R&D & perfection of technologies went down the drain. That simply isn't fair!

In some circles, you see the dangers of constantly changing regulations. For example, the Williams-Renault FW16 was basically a rehashed derivative of the FW15C & FW14B (that won at the hands of Prost & Mansell respectively in 1993 & 1992) but when devoid of active suspension, DBW, TCS & so on, it became akin to taming a wolf rather than a dog! Indeed, Ayrton Senna found the FW16 very difficult to control because it was essentially designed around the very technologies (active suspension, DBW & TCS especially) that had been banned. While it may not have been a direct cause in his death (that's another topic all together) the instability of the car was dangerous.

In 2005 the insistance that a set of tyres last an entire race was no doubt aimed at him more than anybody else (due to the inferior Bridgestones) but to fight & still come third. Though I'm not entirely against the introduction of smaller spec engines, I do believe that the engine-freeze is not productive for F1.

[K-Pu]

Really nice post boy you!
I´d like to share my views again :)



That is your viewpoint & that of many (including Bernie Eccelstone it seems) but the truth is I think that technical development wasn't the issue that killed
the quality of racing. Schumacher was simply too good no matter where the regulations went. Ony in 2002 & 2004 the Ferrari was way ahead of the pack (on a technical level) considering how Barichellio came second on both occasions (the highest he's ever been ranked) & the tightness of the competitions in other years (especially 2001 & 2003) Schumacher was still edged through.

It´s right that the years of total domination by Ferrari were achieved by the great driving of Schumacher, but also because they were too advanced. Indeed, these were a bit boring years because total domination adds nothing but boredom to the spectacle. If the cars are so advanced that they´re easy to drive and impossible to lose control of, I can´t find where´s the driver. IMHO it´s better a good driver than a good car, at least for the show.



Why is that in the 1980s & even 1990s that no driver proved too dominant no matter what regulations? As I said before, (as a Senna fan) had Prost, Mansell or Piquet never existed then Senna would have won 6-7 titles titles, perhaps more. On the other hand, Williams (with a much lower budget than McLaren or Ferrari) produced cars that were not only more advanced (& automated) but were also ground-breaking. Money is not the issue it is made out to be. Money is an issue if you are not successful in most cases.

But there were cases of domination by a car. Williams won everything in 1992 because of their unstoppable machine. Mansell set a new record of victories in a season, and it wasn´t because he suddenly became the best pilot in the world. It was because he was in a great car. I´m not saying that Mansell was a bad pilot, but if it weren´t for the FW14 he couldn´t have won the WDC as he did. And after that domination, the FIA didn´t want another season totally controlled by a car, not a driver.


Toyota can afford to spend twice as much as it does on F1, but spends a certain amount. Doubling what they spend won't double performance or even enhance it. On the other hand, Lotus or Brabham never attained the success of McLaren, possibly because many of their technological concepts (that cost a lot of R&D & manpower) were banned such as the ground-effect (both Lotus & Brabham pioneered such technologies) & thus years of R&D & perfection of technologies went down the drain. That simply isn't fair!

Well, not fair but to a certain extent. Formula 1 is, in addition to a technology show, a spectacle. If you get some technology that makes racing pointless, it´s not good for F1. Above all, I´m a fan and what I want is a good show, and I´d be willing to lower the technical level a bit if that ensures the good health of the sport. For example, engine freezing is a total mistake, but banning TCS has forced the drivers to "drive" harder. There were pilots who were very comfortable with TCS, because they could go flat out knowing that the TCS would do the rest, cutting throttle wen necessary. And also, I don´t know where I heard that Senna´s right foot was a TCS itself. That is what makes F1 a sport not for everyone, and not everyone can drive one of that cars. Again, I´m not saying that with all driving aids available I could put a fast lap in Monaco...


In some circles, you see the dangers of constantly changing regulations. For example, the Williams-Renault FW16 was basically a rehashed derivative of the FW15C & FW14B (that won at the hands of Prost & Mansell respectively in 1993 & 1992) but when devoid of active suspension, DBW, TCS & so on, it became akin to taming a wolf rather than a dog! Indeed, Ayrton Senna found the FW16 very difficult to control because it was essentially designed around the very technologies (active suspension, DBW & TCS especially) that had been banned. While it may not have been a direct cause in his death (that's another topic all together) the instability of the car was dangerous.

I agree with you about this, tough not completely. If you´re saying that banning some technologies can make F1 dangerous, you can also think that letting some of them could also be dangerous.


In 2005 the insistance that a set of tyres last an entire race was no doubt aimed at him more than anybody else (due to the inferior Bridgestones) but to fight & still come third. Though I'm not entirely against the introduction of smaller spec engines, I do believe that the engine-freeze is not productive for F1.

Again I do agree with you, and this time totally.

[ShiftingGears]

That's not the idea. If I was a constructor (& I wish I was) I wouldn't threaten to split from FIA or FOM at all. A split is never in the better interests of F1, & times will change for the better, especially after the new era comes in (I hope) but I would demand that FOMA push for a common consensus. For instance, if F3 & GP2 (or F2 as it may become) are about driver skill, then F1 is meant to be the ultimate challenge because it's about the best possible car that a constructor can produce.

I believe some rules are too constrictive, for instance, the engine freeze is the dumbest idea conceived. But less winglets and TC and driver aids that stifle the racing are great for the sport.


Driving flat out (with all the gadgets & technology applied) to beat somebody should produce exciting racing. I don't have to battle with the car, or systems I should focus purely on the bloke ahead of me & in crossing the line first. F3, GP2 are where a driver picked up the skills, F1 should be where it's all about the best possible cars at the hands of the best drivers who have come from F3 & GP2 (& I wouldn't even consider an IRL driver) to race.

Making it easier to drive flat out (by getting rid of the subtle mistakes with driver aids) is definitely NOT exciting. I want to see drivers push the limit and get punished when they step over that limit. That is part of the spectacle of motor racing - seeing the best drivers able to drive flat out because they have the talent to do so, not because the driver aids make it easier for them. The spectacle is in the CHALLENGE of motor racing, and being able to actually see the drivers at their limit. You cannot see that with huge wings and drivers aids.

Most people want to see the drivers actually drive the car rather than driving a computer which tells the car what to do. Amazing concept isn't it?



I disagree, I believe that driver-aids & aerodynamic grip & all the other technologies make F1 even more exciting. Because drivers will now not be battling the car, they will be battling each other.

No. Drivers are always battling the car while battling each other. How do you not understand that? Why would you want to make that easier?


You make a good case but you forget that Michael Schumacher was simply the dominator & I believe that the spectacle was lost not because of the rules but because he was just too good. Unless another Schumacher comes around things will go back to the way they were in the pre-Schumacher era. He didn't win because of the regulations or technology, he won because he was just that good & Ferrari had the will, know-how & money to put in, where BMW Williams, McLaren-Mercedes & Renault put up spirited challenges but simply didn't have the man behind the machine for one reason or another.
Had Alain Prost, Nigel Mansell or Nelson Piquet Jnr never been born, Ayrton Senna would have been a 5-8 time world champion (who knows he probably would even have retired early because F1 was too easy) but Schumacher had no rivals for so long & in the end, the rules were bent against him. That & the sport was no where near as high-tech as it is today. Likewise, if Alain Prost's, or Mansell or Piquet's rivals were never born they would have been Schumacher's in their time.

Interesting point, but completely irrelevant.

[Tallgeese]

Really nice post boy you!
I´d like to share my views again :)

It´s right that the years of total domination by Ferrari were achieved by the great driving of Schumacher, but also because they were too advanced. Indeed, these were a bit boring years because total domination adds nothing but boredom to the spectacle. If the cars are so advanced that they´re easy to drive and impossible to lose control of, I can´t find where´s the driver. IMHO it´s better a good driver than a good car, at least for the show.

Depends how you define 'good driver' is it somebody who can change gears faster using clutch & stick? Should all drivers revert to clutch & stick because it is simply harder to drive? I say no. I believe exciting racing will be produced by more automination whereby the drivers (with extensive F3 & GP2 backgrounds) will be racing each other rather than fighting the car itself. Besides, I only think that in 2002 & 2004 did Schumacher clearly have a superior car, where in other years he was on par with most.

For instance, Barichellio came 2nd in 2002 & 2004 (in his six year career with Ferrari from 2000 - 2005), but in other years he wasn't in contention for second place. This would seem to suggest that Schumacher coaxed more out of the car than he could, & in those two years (02/04) most other experienced drivers would have come second place too in those circumstances.

Increasing Honda power simply compromised reliability, but even then Senna would reasonably have figured that he could have taken on Mansell without the luxury items (DBW, active suspension, semi-automatic gearbox etc) where Senna had to push the clutch & change gears, Mansell did it on his finger tips & had a far more comfortable ride (& in an hour & a half it does make a difference) thanks to active-suspension!



The bottom line is,

Does technology (including automation) make F1 less entertaining?!

I say, "No, but it makes it very expensive"

Some believe it adds needless expenditures while others believe that the problem is that it takes the thrill out of F1 or even racing. I disagree on both counts & believe that FIA/FOM & so on have adopted the wrong solutions to a misidentified problem.

In my view either a far superior driver with no real rivals (Schumacher) or excess technology can make difference. One could argue that the pointing system is also problematic. If we awarded the first six only, then Räikkönen would easily have edged over Hamilton. Then again, it depends which system you use. Senna & Prost were quite close & in different eras Senna would have won 2 & in others 4, where Prost would have won 3 - 6 depending on each era's pointing system! Mansell would be a 3-time champion under today's system I believe.

History shows us that when a team produces a break-through in technology the competition suddenly becomes one-sided, but that the cost of other teams catching up is prohibative. Still, in the end, it's always been a battle between the constructors as much as it has been between the drivers & that is what makes F1 unique, & I don't believe that we should reduce the latitude for constructors to produce the best chassis by banning technology.



But there were cases of domination by a car. Williams won everything in 1992 because of their unstoppable machine. Mansell set a new record of victories in a season, and it wasn´t because he suddenly became the best pilot in the world. It was because he was in a great car. I´m not saying that Mansell was a bad pilot, but if it weren´t for the FW14 he couldn´t have won the WDC as he did. And after that domination, the FIA didn´t want another season totally controlled by a car, not a driver.

Interesting viewpoint, but remember, the FW14 (prior to the B-spec version) had reliability problems (especially with active-suspension) & curiously Mansell won several races in 1991 but was forced to retire (with no points) where it would have counted for the championship just to finish in the top-6. By 1992 the FW14B was ready & far ahead, but the fact is, even his under-powered FW14 was conceptually superior to Senna's MP4/5 by 1991 proving that power isn't everything (thanks to active-suspension it could corner much faster) & was perhaps the greatest breakthrough since the 'ground-effect' of the 1970s.

Even on his return to F1 (to replace Senna at Williams) he was able to coax more out of the 'technology stripped' FW16B than Damon Hill who had many more testing & racing hours. Heck, even Senna in an under-powered McLaren-Ford (in 1993) came second in the championship to a retiring Prost & ahead of Damon Hill in a technically superior FW15C. In that year, McLaren had developed an active-suspension system that was reasonably reliable (though not as advanced) as Williams, but still had the older Honda powerplant been available (& sufficient reliability) Senna would have probably closed the gap to Prost! It was still a close season with some very exciting moments & chases, especially the Brazilian GP, European GP & British GP (where Prost battled Senna for first position).


Well, not fair but to a certain extent. Formula 1 is, in addition to a technology show, a spectacle. If you get some technology that makes racing pointless, it´s not good for F1. Above all, I´m a fan and what I want is a good show, and I´d be willing to lower the technical level a bit if that ensures the good health of the sport. For example, engine freezing is a total mistake, but banning TCS has forced the drivers to "drive" harder. There were pilots who were very comfortable with TCS, because they could go flat out knowing that the TCS would do the rest, cutting throttle wen necessary. And also, I don´t know where I heard that Senna´s right foot was a TCS itself. That is what makes F1 a sport not for everyone, and not everyone can drive one of that cars. Again, I´m not saying that with all driving aids available I could put a fast lap in Monaco...

I don't agree there, & I don't think TCS really makes a difference when banned. Initially drivers have to take it easy & adapt to the car's new characteristics, but it's no big deal. When I drove F3 (TCSless) I didn't spin out much (only a couple of times in my first few sessions) but discovered it's all about how you 'feel' the car. Not knowing that you have TCS means you will spin it anyway, but in the end it's about how you 'feel' or 'blend' with the car. TCS makes one push a little harder. If I was a racer, I'd train mostly without TCS & race with it. In theory that should make me do better.

Curiously Senna himself said that his feat at Doghinton Park in 1993 (where he by-passed 4-cars, including Prost, Hill & Schumacher) on the first lap of the race in the rain was (to quote Senna) "easy because of traction control"




I agree with you about this, tough not completely. If you´re saying that banning some technologies can make F1 dangerous, you can also think that letting some of them could also be dangerous.

The paradox is, if technology fails (& this can happen) the consequences are greater because the cars are actually going much faster. Yet I think that FIA has learned a lot from Senna's death & the marshals who died in the following years, not to mention the many close-calls. Remember, Kubica's crash was worse than Senna's yet he still escaped relatively unscathed.




Again I do agree with you, and this time totally.

As such, I interpret Schumacher's dominance NOT as a result of technology (except in 2002 & 2004), but as an all out superiority he exhibited during this period. One must not forget that technology is meant to produce faster & more exciting racing. I believe that drivers should be fighting with each other NOT with the car at F1.

[K-Pu]

I see your point, but we go again to the question of:

Does technology make F1 less entertaining?

I couldn´t have said it better, THAT´s the point of all this thread, and I think we won´t reach an agreement no matter what we say about it :) . In fact I find both positions defendable, and though I´m more inclined to restrict technology to make F1 more spectacular, I can see the point in maintaining as much technology as possible.

[Tallgeese]

I think that we can reach some sort of agreement. I personally would watch F1 no matter what configuration it took & I think someone (you?) said earlier that the problem is ongoing (& frequent) changes to F1 regulations that are a problem.

In my view, technology makes it more exciting because drivers battle each other rather than their machines. In the process, you find that they are more focused at beating each other. With engine changes every race, they will push harder (no fear of blowing the engine), with slicks they won't have to improvise for downforce & so on (& that may enable more over-taking opportunities) while ABS, TCS, & DBW will enable faster & fiercer duals, coupled with the (I favour) old pointing system for the top six.

To set legislations aimed at controlling speed/downforce & of course limit technology & development (they are taking about standardising brake-discs for example!) may intend to bring cost-effectiveness & closer competition but in reality it won't solve the problems.




To go back to the 'good old, not so long ago days' Nigel Mansell's FW14B of 1992 was so high-tech that even once awe-binding McLaren-Honda's MP4/5 or /6 couldn't match it! McLaren realised their downfalls & worked on an active suspension system to match that of Williams, but by 1993 had to make to do with Ford engines as the Honda engines were no longer available & the Renault power was reserved exclusively for Williams. Needless to say, McLaren's active suspension corrected many weaknesses of the basic MP4/7 (mostly noticable in the rain where Senna excellend & where engine power was not as important) & Benetton followed along with Ferrari & all were inching to catch up to Williams. It was only a matter of time before they did actually catch up, but for 1992 & 1993, Williams-Renault was just too good.

I believe that had the regulations remained, our space-age F1 cars would be so ultra-advanced that only five (maybe six) teams could field such high-technology cars, where others would simply fall behind on costs, but don't forget, Lotus ceased to exist, as did Arrows, Prost, Shadow, while others just amalgimated with others (Benetton formerly Toleman because Renault!) but attempts to slow down development will never truly narrow competition.

[ShiftingGears]

In my view, technology makes it more exciting because drivers battle each other rather than their machines.

Youve just missed the point of motor racing right there.

[Tallgeese]

Youve just missed the point of motor racing right there.

F1 is not an even playing field. It's about who is the better constructor because a team is the constructor in the process. It is not where you choose from four chassis & four engines (mix & match) & make your own modifications to win. In theory every major car company must have its own team. Quite why it isn't the case is due to many factors.

What next? Will TCS be reintroduced as a safety measure? Will ABS come back for the same reason? If modifying helmets & cockpit layouts while introducing grooved tyres were intended to enhance safey why aren't TCS & ABS employed for the same reasons? In the end, FIA/FOM can bring in any rule or cancel it depending on what reasons they see fit. I think of TCS as both an enhanced safety device & one that produces more exciting racing.

In the end, automobile manufacturers are keen to try to outdo each other in sales & produce better products. Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Honda etc are competing for sales, & not in every product category (depends, FIAT owns Ferrari so it is as involved at many levels) & certainly not directly in many case. However, in the quest for sales (depending on category) there is one category of competition called Formula 1 where the objective is to see which constructor (mostly manufacturer) produces the best car.

To introduce so many limitations on R&D (especially the engine) & technological applications means that the full potential of each manufactuer cannot be put to play. Constructors know how much they want to spend & at what point they should stop spending so let them decide. Why should you put limits on technology? I mean, TCS, ABS, DBW systems, active suspension & other 'driver aids' have real applications.

KERS for instance is something I (as a constructor) would introduce if it improves the performance of my car. If not, I simply reject it. It may be that there is development potential & we may put some R&D effort to test whether this is the case, but under the present rules, if I introduced KERS in (say) the late 1990s & it made my car go faster, FIA's FOM would say, "It's against the rules, take them off now!" & suddenly all our effort was for nothing (time & money wasted) & we have to re-design our car to exact maximum performance without KERS. Suddenly in 2009 we will go back to KERS!

[SGWilko]

, if I introduced KERS in (say) the late 1990s & it made my car go faster, FIA's FOM would say, "It's against the rules, take them off now!" & suddenly all our effort was for nothing (time & money wasted) & we have to re-design our car to exact maximum performance without KERS. Suddenly in 2009 we will go back to KERS!

Like I said, the FIA missed a trick there, didn't they?

[ShiftingGears]

I think of TCS as both an enhanced safety device & one that produces more exciting racing.


Ok, explain it, seeing as driver aids go a long way in preventing mistakes, hence limiting passing opportunities.