How to make F1 more attractive?

[Belatti]

I THINK THAT SPARKS MUST COME BACK

[Militia Est Vita]

ANd V10's, and slicks, and no electronic help

[manchild]

ANd V10's

Car in front has 4 cylinder in-line 1.5l turbo engine

[modbaraban]

ANd V10's

Car in front has 4 cylinder in-line 1.5l turbo engine

that's the point!
I would limit the amount of fuel burned per race and let them innovate and use whatever engine configuration they want!

[manchild]

BTW, that pic is from same race (Austrian GP 1987) when Stefan Johansson hit a deer with his Mclaren.



Mclaren Paintshop Manager George Langhorn

Q: What's the worst thing you've ever had to do?

Oh, there are quite a few candidates for this, but the one that stands out is the weekend Stefan Johansson hit a deer in Friday practice at Austria in 1987. The deer had wandered out on to the track, and Stefan went straight into it full tilt. What a mess! The bodywork was smashed to bits, and we had to get a whole new chassis from Woking. But the worst thing was that there was blood and guts inside the wrecked cockpit and gore smeared all over what was left of the car. It was totally disgusting, and guess who had to clear it all up? I had a young assistant at the time, and after the remains had been dragged back to the garage we had to clean it all to assess the damage and work out what was salvageable and what wasn't. I don't think I've ever enjoyed anything less: the remains of this deer had worked themselves into every nook and cranny.

[Belatti]

I would limit the amount of fuel burned per race and let them innovate and use whatever engine configuration they want!

Me too! but recently I read that, for example, in a 400M top team F1 budget, 200M are spent in engine development, and that´s why the FIA clowns put those stupid rules, because they think that´s the easiest way to cut budget.

Budgets grew up 26% from 2005 to 2006, mostly due to engine development (Honda: 250M - Cosworth 15M)

I think cutting budgets its difficult because almost there are no more F1 independant teams who were in charge of getting their own money, instead we have got "BIG MANUFACTURERS" with plenty of $$$ to spend.

Something to learn: Efficiency
1) Renault - F1 champion - 320M
2) Toyota - F1 reject - 480M
3) Honda - F1 reject - 400M

[modbaraban]

How to make F1 more attractive?

BTW, that pic is from same race (Austrian GP 1987) when Stefan Johansson hit a deer with his Mclaren.

I'm sorry, but... Have anyone got the point of this post? Perhaps that was some sort of a hint and I'm just one of those thickheads?
I mean it was interesting to read but I feel like I'm missing the point

----------

@ Belatti, I agree with every word of that last post.

[Tom]

I would limit the amount of fuel burned per race

Thats easy, ban refuelling and limit tank size, much safer for everyone and theres no boring strategic pit stops to win the race for you, its driver skill...

[mx_tifoso]

I would limit the amount of fuel burned per race

Thats easy, ban refuelling and limit tank size, much safer for everyone and theres no boring strategic pit stops to win the race for you, its driver skill...

Double (approx) the size of the current fuel tank to take away the need of refueling during the pitstop. So if re-fueling were to become unnecessary, pit stops would still be needed for tire changes.
(1 set of tires per race will most likely not be coming back any time soon, IMO.)

Increasing the size of the fuel tank would affect many other areas of the car, especially surrounding the engine, and/or the engine cover.

But how would this specific change be "much safer for everyone"?
Are you referring to the actual process of re-fueling? For example the accidental mishaps with Schumacher a few years back, F.Massa earlier this season, as well as with the Spyker driver dragging the entire fuel hoses down the pitlane.

Something I would like to see as well would be a variety of engine configurations. Each team choosing what suits their style, or preference the best. From T I-4, to V10's roaring through the track at the same time, simply wonderful.

[Tom]

mx-tifosi wrote

But how would this specific change be "much safer for everyone"?
Are you referring to the actual process of re-fueling? For example the accidental mishaps with Schumacher a few years back, F.Massa earlier this season, as well as with the Spyker driver dragging the entire fuel hoses down the pitlane.

Exactly, no more fuel hoses in the pit lane instantly means a much safer working environment for the whole crew, driver, wheels guys, the teams down the rest of the pitlane...all would instantly have the biggest danger removed. Also consider the refuelling flaps could be much simpler, non automatic, less likely to flap open on the circuit, possibly break and damage other more vital parts of the cars.

Thats how it was done in the 80s, and it was brilliant, championships were won by drivers being more efficient than their competitors but knowing when to use those vapours to attack, without running out.

[Rob W]

I can't deny, those sparks look awesome..

Rob W

[captainmorgan]

I agree with fuel limits. But I think you can limit that at the refuelling hose, it doesnt have to be on the car. The former makes for a more open formula, leaving the choice to the team whether or not 0, 1, or 2 stops w/ or w/o a large fuel tank makes for a faster car.

Usually people disagree with the idea b/c in the 80's, you'd see drivers run out of gas on track and say its boring. We already have that with car malfunctions, and fuel levels are measured much more accurately these days.

Plus with the only regulations being safety regs and fuel limits, the formula is opened. When design variables increase, there is more innovation. Not to mention, less interference from FIA tyrants.

[manchild]

I can't deny, those sparks look awesome..

Rob W

Same team, another car, same race:

PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO, IT IS GREAT!

video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc6YKKHbFK0

[jamsbong]

I really enjoy the current state of F1. With just one tyre manufacturer and no engine modification had made the cars closer together than before.
However, because of these, all RnD efforts has been put to aerodynamics. The faster car is the one with better aero. This also made very difficult to follow another car around a turn. This should be changed. We want an unpredictable finish, not the driver who pit on the last stop and is in front on the outing confirms the winner of the day. I often just leave after I've seen the last set of pitstops.

I propose an aero rule that must allow cars behind to be minimally affected by the turbulent flow. ie. the lost of downforce on cornering scenario can not be less than 80% when following another car at very close distance, say... 2metres.

Donno if that is a realistic rule but the idea is to encourage overtaking. What do you guys think?

[flynfrog]

I would much rather see a much more open set of rules give the engineers a blank page and let them amke there own tires (whatever size) if they want to

ditch the stupid two race engine rule and the slab of plywood on the bottom of the car. give the teams a box the car must fit in and a fuel flow regulator or a set amount of fuel per race bring creativity back to F1