How Many Finishers in Melbourne?

[turbof1]

You could sensibilize that. Ferrari would need to cooperate, but if they changed the track and ferrari, along other teams, released a statement that they were ok with it and agreed with it for the sake of the sport, I think you would have a lot less angry fans.

The case in indianapolis was a prime example of the sport's inability to solve problems where many different parties all have their own agenda. Many fans that day btw pointed the finger at ferrari btw, throwing plastic bottles and such to the cars.

[slimfitcasual]

You seem to be a tech fan and that is just fine. However, you must understand that sponsors pay for all of this on the condition that people on TV watch it. The time you start having several mockery races in a row, with few finishers, that's when you will have this 1 billion TV viewers start dwindling.

Couple that with the escalating cost of running the new and expensive technology the F1 community must somehow fund (from sponsors) and potentially you get a vicious circle and a recipe for a disaster.

I think you're gravitating too much to what ifs. People want drama and spectacle from their sport, this season will provide that in spades. The first half of the season will be carnage, no doubt. Things will level out by mid season. The drivers and engineers will adapt.

I don't have the numbers handy but TV viewership has plummeted over the past few years, due in part to Vettel's dominance and the generally reliability (read: monotony) of the racing. This is just as bad if not worse for sponsors.

F1 needed a shake up. We can argue nuances all day and yet I know that these changes have brought my father back to F1 after many years of half interested scanning of articles and sighing about the monotony. I imagine many more eyebrows are being raised at the mention of the four-time world champ with a dog of a car and heritage teams like Williams running well, recalling their halcyon days...

[321apex]

F1 needed a shake up.

Shake up was needed, but an earthquake was effected.

When you have a successful global business such as F1, you must nurture it and implement delicate evolutionary changes to make it better. Evolution instead of revolution.

For years there was a talk about reducing operating costs at a team level. Instead in one shot they substantially elevated this cost thru much higher technology.

The changes should have been broken down into segments and put in place over several years, allowing everyone concerned needed time to get technically up to speed with it without disrupting the finances of all teams. High tech is great for big manufacturers, but are these big manufacturers good for F1?
No way.

Just look at Toyota, Ford, BMW and few others how much staying power they are willing to put into F1. They come and go as they please once they achieve their marketing goal and do not give a flying .... what happens to F1 once they are done "playin'". FIA should have been more "insulated" from political influence of big manufacturers, who want a temporary stage to show off their hybrid stuff.

Needless to say, it was big manufacturers who pushed for those technological advancements, which may in the end cause the F1 as we know and love to come down as a house of cards.

[MOWOG]

I have to agree, once again, with much of 321's comments, especially with regard to introducing changes gradually. Doing this much of a "shake up" WITHOUT additional testing is nothing short of idiotic. Tightening the reliability standards in the midst of such technological upheavals borders on stupidity. The need for change may have existed, but the changes have been managed in a sophomoric, haphazard fashion. As someone once said, never start vast projects with half vast ideas.

And for the record, I did not throw any soft drinks containers at the racers in Indianapolis in '05. Rather, I heaved a nearly full can of Foster's at the left front wheel of Michael Schumacher's car and was greatly disappointed when it fell short of its intended target.

[CBeck113]

I can only partially agree with 321 & MOWOG. Since this is both a driver and team championship, both need to be challenged, so that they earn their laurels. The tire changes last year, which would have been a good idea had they been designed correctly, were a huge test of driver skills. Pirelli blew it, both the initial design and the "improvement", which decided the championship.
This year's power train changes are a challenge for the teams to earn their bread. All the teams agreed on this formula, it was not forced upon them. Just as the FIA doesn't fully understand the implications and engineering solutions for their rule changes, the teams (except maybe Mercedes) underestimated these changes, or are being very cautious in its implementation. Eitehr way, the best team will win. And if Renault/RB have to play catch-up, it will make the seasion quite interesting...which is what we want, right?
Saying that the FIA should have changed the track at Indy because Michelin did not supply its teams with material capable of handling the conditions is the same as the FIA reducing the race in Melbourne to 5 laps to insure that the Renault-powered teams can finish too. Just no. They must start the race, and if they're smart, they'll try to finish the race, even if it means that they get lapped 10 times - they will still have the opportunity to finish in a good position for the TV money, and possibly points as well. They also need the testing time badly.
As for the spectators, they'll watch, and they will wait for failures- hopefully with lots of flames but no injuries.

[FoxHound]

High tech is great for big manufacturers, but are these big manufacturers good for F1?
No way.

Just look at Toyota, Ford, BMW and few others how much staying power they are willing to put into F1. They come and go as they please once they achieve their marketing goal and do not give a flying .... what happens to F1 once they are done "playin'".

When you have multinational companies who conduct business in an orderly fashion ie BMW Ford and Toyota, then it stands to reason they will not hang around for long when certain Ecclestone runs the show, does it not?
Changing rules, favouritism(Ferrari), back street dealings(gibrowsky), manipulation etc etc are not conducive environments for any manufacturer to thrive(Ferrari excluded for the obvious reason).

We can tilt the focus to indie teams and see how many have gone bust or forced to transfer ownership since 1990. This includes teams that have now become manufacturer owned.
Alphabetically: BAR/Tyrrel/Brawn, Arrows, Bennetton, EuroBrun, Fondmetal, Forti, HRT, Jordan, Larousse, Leyton house, Life, Lola, March, Midland, Minardi, Onyx, Osella, Pacific, Prost, Simtek, Spyker, Stewart, Super Aguri, Venturi and Virgin.
There are also big questions over Sauber, Force India, Caterham and Marussia currently. Now how will this fit into a your vision of stability, when the facts show it is in fact the indie teams that come and go as they see fit, without ever actually adding much to the sport other than making up the numbers.

FIA should have been more "insulated" from political influence of big manufacturers, who want a temporary stage to show off their hybrid stuff.

I'm sorry, but do you have any proof your claim? The FIA wanted 4 cylinder engines. http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/ ... 12237.html

And they consulted all parties before making their decison with the World MotorSport Council(WMSC)
http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... 12241.html

If the FIA needs protecting, it is from itself.

You say high tech is good for the manufacturers. I believe steadfast that Hi-tech is good for F1 in general because it allows the sport to evolve.The tech questions will always occur with the onset of new rules, as is happening now.
Does this mean F1 should have kept the V8? I certainly was getting bored of it.
This is precisely where Manufacturers can cut their teeth and make a difference. And indies like Williams are now light years ahead of just a few months back in big part due to the rule change and Manufacturer involvement.

So while the rate of attrition may be high in Melbourne, it really is a short term problem for a longer term gain.
Renault will suffer initially it appears, but do you think this will be the case come July? I would bet they improve dramatically.

Needless to say, it was big manufacturers who pushed for those technological advancements, which may in the end cause the F1 as we know and love to come down as a house of cards.

Has this ever happened? We can see historically that F1 has been worse off with smaller grids and higher attritional races. I think your memory needs a refresh.

A ten year snap shot of first races of the season:
1990: 26 starters 14 finishers.
1991: 26 starters 13 finishers 15 of the 24 suffered mechanical failure.
1992: 26 starters 13 finishers.
1993: 26 starters 7(!) finishers.
1994: 26 starters 12 finishers....everyone lapped.
1995: 26 starters 10 finishers...all but one lapped.
1996: 22 starters 11 finishers.
1997: 24 starters 10 finishers.
1998: 22 starters 9 finishers.
1999: 22 starters 8 finishers.

This is about 40% finish rate for 10 years. Indie teams going bust mid season, unprofessional outfits with no end of amusing mishaps.

So if the guys who pay to design engines want them to better reflect the world we live in(smaller capacity engines, turbos and energy recovery systems) and creating new technology for people who come to this site thrive on, then I say it is good for F1.
It is about innovation, not backward thinking stagnation. All that is happening now is Progress. If the Oz GP has 8 finishers from a grid of 20 cars, then it will be doing as good if not better than it had done in the 90s, with the biggest changes in a generation. Progress.
Embrace it.

[MOWOG]

Renault will suffer initially it appears, but do you think this will be the case come July? I would bet they improve dramatically.

I think that is an accurate assessment. I also think the mark of a true champion is how he performs under duress. Any fool can storm to a world championship if the car he is driving has a significant competitive advantage over the competition. Jacques Villeneuve, Jenson Button and Sebastien Vettel are proof.

But how will Vettel perform when the Red Bull is struggling to meet the 107% rule or get out of Q1? The answer to that question will determine whether he is regarded as one of the great drivers of all time or simply one very lucky SOB who rode Baron Mateshitz's coat tails to multiple WDC titles.

We know Vettel is good. Very good, in fact. But is he in the same conversation with Senna and Schumacher? This year should tell the story.

[Lycoming]

Just look at Toyota, Ford, BMW and few others how much staying power they are willing to put into F1. They come and go as they please once they achieve their marketing goal and do not give a flying .... what happens to F1 once they are done "playin'". FIA should have been more "insulated" from political influence of big manufacturers, who want a temporary stage to show off their hybrid stuff.

I wouldn't call it "playin". They leave when the costs outweigh the benefits, and enter when it's the other way around. They aren't kids out for a joyride who leave when they get bored. It's just another investment to them.

Also, the FIA has enough internal politics to fill several tabloids. For example, why was Gary Hartstein fired? Whatever politics the carmakers force upon them is a drop in the ocean by comparison.

The changes should have been broken down into segments and put in place over several years, allowing everyone concerned needed time to get technically up to speed with it without disrupting the finances of all teams.

ERS was introduced in a basic form in 2009. Powertrain development has been going on since before 2013. The transition wasn't that sudden.

Needless to say, it was big manufacturers who pushed for those technological advancements, which may in the end cause the F1 as we know and love to come down as a house of cards.

Sort of. They wanted inline engines, not Vs. They didn't quite get what they wanted either. Actually I'm pretty sure nobody quite got what they wanted, but a good compromise leaves everybody sour, so...

In any case, the first race of the season has yet to run. Don't you think it's a bit early to cry doom and gloom? Who knows, maybe it'll rain and the cool temperatures and slow pace will enable a large number of finishers, minus a few who crash out.

Still, I disagree that a high attrition rate degrades the legitimacy of the sport, even in the modern environment. If nothing ever fails, you'ro not pushing hard enough. Loads of retirements is just a part of racing.

Doing this much of a "shake up" WITHOUT additional testing is nothing short of idiotic.

They probably should have been allowed a few outings in 2013 to track test the powertrains.

Tightening the reliability standards in the midst of such technological upheavals borders on stupidity.

If you're referring to the increased mileage requirements, I don't think that's stupid in and of itself. The goal may be a bit of a pipe dream at first, but they'll have it sorted out in short order once they start racing with them.

I also think the mark of a true champion is how he performs under duress.

absolutely agree.

[iotar__]

F1 needed a shake up.

Shake up was needed, but an earthquake was effected.

When you have a successful global business such as F1, you must nurture it and implement delicate evolutionary changes to make it better. Evolution instead of revolution.

For years there was a talk about reducing operating costs at a team level. Instead in one shot they substantially elevated this cost thru much higher technology.

The changes should have been broken down into segments and put in place over several years, allowing everyone concerned needed time to get technically up to speed with it without disrupting the finances of all teams. High tech is great for big manufacturers, but are these big manufacturers good for F1?
No way.

Just look at Toyota, Ford, BMW and few others how much staying power they are willing to put into F1. They come and go as they please once they achieve their marketing goal and do not give a flying .... what happens to F1 once they are done "playin'". FIA should have been more "insulated" from political influence of big manufacturers, who want a temporary stage to show off their hybrid stuff.

Needless to say, it was big manufacturers who pushed for those technological advancements, which may in the end cause the F1 as we know and love to come down as a house of cards.

I see your perspective and you may not like F1's direction or low reliability for whatever reason but: "undeveloped prototypes wanting to grind to a halt at moments notice and in worst case catch on fire."? A bit over-dramatic? I'd replace "catch on fire" with electrocute everyone on track and small village nearby for bigger effect .

Simple and previously stated: either they'll figure out with time after period of high percentage of DNFs or they'll adjust rules, testing whatever is required. Or not. No golden standard from the past or present will suffer mostly because such pure standard doesn't exist. F1 is artificial, mismanaged mess and as long it's earning money it's OK, what you expect from it like careful planning, evolution etc. is not going to happen.

If you have three sources of power (big teams, "Ecclestone" and FIA) with different goals it's simply impossible. Other reasons for not doing additional tests and gradual changes, I'd guess: time and costs. BTW those big engine manufacturers forcing changes are kind of necessary - for pinnacle, marketing/financial and technology reasons, you can't dismiss them. If you hear that Ford/Cosworth might be interested it's because of changes - like it or not.

[Gridlock]

I think you can sum up the manufacturers' reticence as

"It'll cost me $600m to try and beat a caffeine salesman? Where's the ROI?"

[Lycoming]

In fairness, that caffeine salesman is a marketing genius who can sell his product at twice the price of his competitors even though it doesn't taste as good and still rake in billions of euros in revenue.

[MOWOG]

If you're referring to the increased mileage requirements, I don't think that's stupid in and of itself.

If the sport had decided to make the existing V-8's last an extra race or two, no one would object. But when the sport decides that an all new engine with lots of new technology including a device to capture any residual energy in whatever noxious gasses the drivers might expel from their sphincters during the race AND that the new powertrain should get significantly greater fuel economy AND the cars should have significantly altered aerodynamic characteristics AND the transmissions should all use the same gear ratios all season long AND the engine, transmission and KERS and ERS should all be considered one unit for the purposes of determining durability AND track testing of the new package should be severely limited, THEN I think the whole thing is poorly thought out and borders on stupidity.

But hey, that's just my opinion. Your mileage may vary. And probably will!

[iotar__]

The biggest if not the only problem with new engine rules is not reliability or image but limited competitiveness.
Two (three?) teams were given a huge advantage and now with Renault problems and sub-par Ferrari it looks like it's going to be even worse, Mercedes teams championship - with one possible winner.

I guess that's within F1's golden standard, as Red Bull's example from previous years has shown - people love it. The difference is RB figured it out themselves - Ferrari and Mercedes (to the lesser extent RB(?)) were given it on a silver plate.

[bauc]

I think we goona see 13-15 cars finishing .....just my opinion

[Gridlock]

OK, poll has closed (not sure why I set it that early..) so :-

Nearly half of us think 12 or fewer will finish, including 24% < 10, ie points positions. Mr Fernandes voted 12 times

And now they're forecasting rain for Sunday. If I were to vote today, I think 6-10 feels right.

The 3 people who voted between 19 and 22 - fancy a bet?