lkocev wrote:I think there is good reason to close the pits in the current regulation, because cars are not refueled it means there shouldn't be a case where a driver must pit during a closed period, or run out of fuel. But the problem I have with that is that it takes away the 'luck of the draw' element, which I find interesting.
I sense a desire for entertainment features that bring a certain conflict with the purity of open wheel racing in the traditional form that was exercised in the 60ties, 70ties and 80ties. Since the middle of the 90ties we have also seen a huge increase of the commercial powers in F1 mainly expressed by the power of FOM to dictate the specifications of race tracks and select tracks that are commercially optimized. The rule making commissions and working groups are more concerned with the "show" than the "sport" in order to make more money and increase revenues. Perhaps I explain what I consider obstacles to pure racing.Tomba wrote:Obviously they (tyres) shouldn't be designed to fail, but quick reduction in tyre performance after some time would help a great deal. Why can't the FIA look into tyres made of 2 compounds. An upper layer that is extremely soft for high grip, and under that a hard but slippery rubber that will get you nowhere if you decide to keep running them.
- no short races of 200 or 250 km as proposed by some teams
- no more abolishing and mutilation of old race tracks for TV purposes like Hockenheim
- no refuling stops that allow sprint races and encourage drivers to wait for pit stops to pass
- no reverse grids or split races
- no race fuel qualifying which masks the true top speed capability of the cars and drivers and devalue pole position
- no artificial tyre stops to expand strategy options and create a talking point for the tyre supplier
- no artificial lottery for "free" pit stops during safety car periods
- no proximity wing exclusively for the driver behind
- no push to pass by KERS or other means
- no unnecessary slow corners to create TV advertising opportunities
- no excessive downforce that prevents slipstreaming and lets drivers take fast corners flat
- no third cars or satellite teams
- no driver aids such as ABS, ESP, TC and launch control
The features which we call gimmicks or commercial enhancers may be of interest to the uneducated occasional TV viewers but they do little for fans of the sport.
Pure racing for me is not about drivers that have to operate a steering wheel with thirty buttons and dials, an F-duct, a brake bias lever, active wing control and KERS! Drivers should master the traditional race craft of controling the car with steering wheel and the pedals in all kinds of situations. They also should be masters of managing tyre wear, situational awareness, defensive driving, dealing with slower traffic and close wheel to wheel racing always leaving the opponent room on the track according to the rules.
Everything that detracts from those sporting qualities like gimmicks, GPS and computer aided strategies produces the wrong qualities in the drivers. Do we want babies that are remote controlled by their race engineer and win because they were at the right place in the right time or do we want drivers who win because they are quick, capable and know to use their own brain?
I am convinced that F1 will will have enough spectators and TV viewers if the commercial side focusses on getting a good mix of team, driver and circuit nationalities. Schumacher and Alonso in my view have done more to promote F1 commercially than some of the gimmicks that were invented to increase the "show". If FOM focusses on the US, India, Russia and Chinese markets by involving manufacturers, circuits and teams F1 will still find huge growth potential.
Ok, enough of the rant and let me know what you think of those ideas.