What Should F1 Be About

[ArrowsFA1]

The FIA President's comment (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81359) that
How can you explain that an F1 car needs 80 litres of fuel to cover 100 kilometres? go me asking some questions about a possible fundamental shift in what F1 racing is all about.

Is it about competing, racing and winnng?

Is it about showing the sport is environmentally aware, and being a test bed for new efficient technology that can be applied to the motor industry and the cars that we drive?

Can it be about both?

We've seen many manufacturers leave the sport recently, but Jean Todt has again emphasised the the FIA's wish to "cut costs, improve the show and draw investors". Investors to me means money, and in recent years we've seen the FIA encourage manufacturers to take part in F1. With that came an awful lot of money. Money which was spent and so, it could be argued, led to the calls to cut costs and the departure of the manufacturers!!

Is it really for F1 to set itself up as an R&D facility for road cars if manufacturers of those road cars do not want, or cannot afford, to take part? They're already spending billions on their own, arguably more relevant, R&D.

Shouldn't simply F1 focus on what it has been about for most of its' existence - the racing. The competition between drivers and teams. Who can be fastest? Or are those things seen as luxuries now?

I for one don't ever want to see the victory being awarded to the driver/team that can achieve the best mpg :crazy:

Any thoughts or responses to this rambling rant :dozey: :p

[V12]

It can be about both, but only if handled properly.

Take KERS for example, going into the details, they hamstrung teams using it by only allowing it to be used for a certain number of seconds with a limit on the power boost, all in all it was nothing more than a glorified Palmer Audi/Champ Car-style push to pass button.

If they'd said "right, you can use these systems, and use as much power as you can harness from it, in any way you want", the vast majority of the grid would have taken it and ran with it, but the pussy-foot approach of the FIA's, in my opinion, killed the whole concept prematurely.

The same applies with improving economy in general. It would be wrong for them to say "right, these homologated 2.4 litre V8s that we make you run need to be more efficient, here's a list of approved changes that you make make under FIA supervision for homolog-blah blah blah". However, if they said "You are allocated this much energy to use, here's a clean sheet of paper, now do whatever the hell you want", then the possibilities would be endless.

Cars going too fast for safety? No need to mess about with engine sizes or aerodynamics, just tweak the energy limit and let the constructors and engine builders cope with it.

Yes you'd get the odd economy run, the occasional car running out of juice on the last lap, but F1 has never really been about a sprint race, until the recent era of insanely reliable cars, there's always something that's needed to be conserved when appropriate. It would make it more likely that different cars would be quicker at different times in the race and on the whole make things more interesting, too.

In summation, F1 can be a great test bed for relevant real-world technologies, but it has to be done under the framework of all-out, no-bull competition. In other words there has to be a real incentive to develop these technologies, and if that means the "unfair advantage" and a dominant team for a while then so be it. When you start working to peg everyone back to square one (like with the whole engine equalisation mess) then you lose any incentive to be creative and to better yourself. Communism I think they call it.

The two different aims can thrive off each other, if anything the real enemies are the aims of endless cost cutting and "levelling the playing field", this is what kills both on track competition AND technical innovation.

I for one don't ever want to see the victory being awarded to the driver/team that can achieve the best mpg :crazy:

Then presumably you think 1984 & 1985 were crap seasons?

[wedge]

It can be about both, but only if handled properly.

Take KERS for example, going into the details, they hamstrung teams using it by only allowing it to be used for a certain number of seconds with a limit on the power boost, all in all it was nothing more than a glorified Palmer Audi/Champ Car-style push to pass button.

Agreed.

KERS made the technological arms race more interesting for a change other than salivating over bits of sculptured carbon fibre.

Electronic driver aids like TC, active suspension have been used and banned. Where next for F1?

[I am evil Homer]

It has to be relevant. No manufacturer will spend millions if they cannot then use the experience into their everyday ops or R&D. In many ways WRC could be stealing a march here with 1.6 turbos from 2011 as the trend is for smaller, turbo units on road cars to improve fuel consumption.

So who does F1 want to attract? Ferrari, Merc and McLaren are there already. How will it work for an indpendent or another manufacturer?

[Mark]

It has to be relevant. No manufacturer will spend millions if they cannot then use the experience into their everyday ops or R&D.

I wouldn't say that. Being involved in F1 at all raises the image of a manufacturer. But being in it for years and doing sod all (ala Toyota) doesn't help at all.

[ArrowsFA1]

Then presumably you think 1984 & 1985 were crap seasons?
The fuel restrictions at the time meant that we saw drivers running out of fuel, pushing their cars over the line, and cars being disqualified for being underweight after winning races.

It is, of course, reasonable to argue that teams/drivers then (and perhaps now if a fuel restricted formula is reintroduced) should be able to manage their fuel allocation well enough to finish races.

For me, that's not racing. It's a fuel economy run. I didn't enjoy seeing it in the mid-80's and I wouldn't enjoy seeing it again.

As for 1984/5 being "crap seasons"? As a whole, no. There were great teams, drivers, cars, venues and plenty worth watching, much as there is today.

[Garry Walker]

The FIA President's comment (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81359) that go me asking some questions about a possible fundamental shift in what F1 racing is all about.

Is it about competing, racing and winnng?

Is it about showing the sport is environmentally aware, and being a test bed for new efficient technology that can be applied to the motor industry and the cars that we drive?

It should only be about competing, racing and winning. Everything else is irrelevant. At least should be.

I dont care even slightly how environmentally friendly F1 is.

[I am evil Homer]

I wouldn't say that. Being involved in F1 at all raises the image of a manufacturer. But being in it for years and doing sod all (ala Toyota) doesn't help at all.

Do you have any facts to support that?

F1-based brands (that have been there for years) such as McLaren, Ferrari and Williams are very different to Toyota, Renault etc. Why does Renault need a different image if it's producing the Twingo, Clio and Megane as it's core cars? Did Alonso sell more Clios or did Autocar giving it a higher rating than the Polo, Fiesta etc?

F1 purely as a marketing exercise is akin to burning money - there's better and more effective ways of doing it.