Drivers reveal how they would change and improve Formula 1

[mycadcae]

The F1 drivers have had their say on how they would like to see the sport change and improve following Liberty Media's takeover.

After chairman Chase Carey told Sky Sports News that Liberty Media intended to "make Formula 1 everything it can be", a number of radical ideas for improving F1 have been put forward, including a dramatic shake-up of a conventional race weekend that would see more than one grand prix take place.

Sky F1 asked the drivers ahead of this weekend's Singapore GP how they would like to see the sport evolve - and received some very different ideas and solutions...

source : http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/ ... -formula-1

[Facts Only]

I cant remember the last time I read so much pointless waffle, basicially every answer was some diplomatic faff about making the competition closer or getting a younger audience... well duh! Everyone wants that.
The only actual 'idea' was Bottas saying tickets should be cheaper so more people can go to actual races and experience it first hand (something that definitely makes people life-long fans).

Oh and Seb wants to go back to 1975... at least he would have a winning car that way.

[iotar__]

Oh please. To improve this sport:
- 1/3 of F1 drivers should fire themselves, some of them 2-3 years ago
- 1/3 of them (not necessarily the same or different) should advocate for their teams to get less money which would mean less money for themselves, less power and impact on rules and other aspects too
- 1/3 of them (see above which) should ask for all the penalties they didn't receive
Good luck with all that.

Don't even start me with what 'crowd wants'. Driver who didn't anything interesting on track for years and every time he tried his buddy Whiting had to bail him out is babbling about pokemons and young people Ways to improve are still the same, F1 has to be a competitive sport through:
- teams: any competitiveness is killed now with money distribution, cost level, impact on refereeing and technical decisions - remove or limits those areas
- drivers: best drivers in the best cars and not this marketing puppets farce we have now, it should be costly to make bad driver decisions, it should be very clear and visible if that happens, profitable if you make the right one. You want to choose which drivers wins before the season? Fine - you're losing WCC. You want to hire based on marketing or paper championships? Fine you finish behind Force India every race and not every time it was possible.
- sporting regulations

[Manoah2u]

Real talents in F1, not paying sissies.
Promote F1 actually, not only towards bored rich fat old guys. Boss is cool and all, but most fans can't afford that stuff.
Bring back F1 editions for street cars. I vividly remember F1 editions from Renault. There was a Megane or Espace with an F1 engine (literally) promoted, obviously,
that one wasn't for sale, but stuff like that catches attention, and then a Clio F1 edition raises interest too.
Honda NSX F1 Hybrid 'Alonso' edition and 'Button' edition also are the stuff you want to have and promote, and get on a poster on your bedroom (as a kid).
Renault Twingo RedBull WDC editions.
Mercedes A-class F1 Hamilton Edition, and Rosberg Edition.
Fiat 500 F1 Ferrari edition

As for the race format, i dont think that needs changing AT ALL.
What needs to change is the BS gimmicks that dont belong in racing and rules that only confuse.

DRS - do away with it. Super-degrading tyres (due to heat) : do away with them.
Free tire choice. Return private testing.
dont do stupid rule changes like the radio ban, overly active track limit punishments, etcetera.

Dont put rolling starts on for the measiest of rain drops.

Dont put Eddie Jordan on the podium to interview the drivers (cringe level over 9,000 )
Stop having sky use johnny herbert and martin brundle do boring 'events' in race cars whatever that nobod cares about.
give us a look into the real life of a F1 driver.

dont have shame on F1 drivers having lots of money and using it. show more monaco. show more glitter and glamour.
show more female flesh, sexy grid girls needs to come back. If you get offended as a 50+ housewife sitting too much on your too big behind,
go look TLC or leave your man alone and enjoy his eyes for a change, instead of going feminist crazy.
go lavish. promote F1 drivers in TV ads, youtube ADS, etc.

bring back the 'danger' of mechanical errors in F1, instead of ultra-economic ultra-resistant F1 cars that dont break down in any way possible,
causing a borefest. Fix too safe 'off-track' parts where you can make an error and nothing special. you can still have safety asphalt further up,
just make sure you have gravel traps or grass 'traps' that actually really hurt you if you get there, and not just 'oops, ill just lift and coast for a
moment so they can see on the GPS data i 'took action' and really dont lose anything.

I already mentioned other more 'interactive' solutions to make F1 more entertaining through membership stuff.
I'd like to see them do a inquiry by writing them for good ideas. instead, this indeed seems nothing more but dumb political correct talk.

[zac510]

I really hate the way these threads always just descend into "everyone post your magical silver bullet for solving all of F1s problems."

You can tell people have not really given any significant thought to one of the most fundamental problems of F1 racing and indeed any sport, and that is the desires of the fans and the desires of the competitors are polar opposite. For example, the fact that spectators wants and a team's wants are so polar opposed. Of course the drivers say they want more close racing, but given the choice of a close battle for 4-5 laps, or making a clean pass at the end of the straight and then pulling out a stable five second gap, of course they're going to choose the latter. Same for team principals; they laud a close race but ultimately they'd prefer a 1-2 with a 30 second lead. You simply won't get the teams changing their way to please the fans want because it's risky, dangerous. A close, race long battle is more risky than a 1-2 with a 30 second lead.

(PS I did lol at iotar's post though )

[basti313]

Sky F1 asked the drivers ...

If you ask weird people, you get weird answers.
Why do the ask guys, who are sponsored with loads of McLaren, BMW or Oil money since they are 12 years old the question, what normal people want???

The only answers I like is that Sunday afternoons in the summer are nonsense. Sunday evening in the autumn is ok, but the best are the early Sunday races like Japan. Singapore now could be easily one of them...and not sitting in front of the TV on a sunny Sunday afternoon.

[Facts Only]

bring back the 'danger' of mechanical errors in F1, instead of ultra-economic ultra-resistant F1 cars that dont break down in any way possible,

I read this quite often on F1T and it always laves me chuckling but also a bit bemused.

How exactly are you going to being back mechanical errors? Take away the quality departments measureing equipment? Make the build technicians have 5 beers before they start work? Or simply tell the designers to do their work badly?

And dont say "Make the cars faster, pushing the limits" they still wont break down because breakdowns = zero points and the teams arent run by morons who dont realise that points = prizes.

The cars and engines are running closer to the 'limit' than they ever have done, its just that engineering/quality/analysis/measurement has progressed vastly in the last 20 years and we know far more accurently where the 'limit' is so we can work much closer to it without going over the 'limit'.

Its also a bit of an odd thing to want anyway, and completely contradictory to good racing. Everyone wants close fast racing but cars that are broken down at the side of the track after 3 laps cant have a good race can they? Also if the driver knows that if he guns the car its likely to break down he wont drive to the limit will he? Any driver with a fragile car and a brain will simply nurse the car round hoping that everyone else will break down.... AND that wont make for a good race either will it?

I do agree that there should be more risk/danger to running off the track though, driver mistakes should cause them more of a problem that just driving around some flat tarmac.

[zac510]

The underlying point of 'mechanical error' is actually, I think, a desire for some unpredictability. As Facts Only has pointed out we can't really roll back unreliability. As far as I know the only way to introduce some unpredictability into the series is to regulate the f--- out of it particularly by introducing new rules that make engineering the ideal car more difficult (banning refuelling and full-track DRS were good for that) and things like, ahem, degrading tyres.

[Manoah2u]

it's rather simple really.

because of the restriction of using just 5 engines a season, the engines are not pushed to their limits.
because of fuel limit, the engines are not pushed to their limits.
because of artificial tire wear risk, the cars are not pushed to their limits.

not being able to push to the limits brings borefest.
being at the limit brings a danger of DNF.

all or nothing is no longer part of f1, its 'lets tone it down so we atleast get something'. that is not racing.
that is the inherent problem.

we now get teams to take penalties in 1 race so they can use another batch of engines.

[Facts Only]

it's rather simple really.

because of the restriction of using just 5 engines a season, the engines are not pushed to their limits.
because of fuel limit, the engines are not pushed to their limits.
because of artificial tire wear risk, the cars are not pushed to their limits.

not being able to push to the limits brings borefest.
being at the limit brings a danger of DNF.

all or nothing is no longer part of f1, its 'lets tone it down so we atleast get something'. that is not racing.
that is the inherent problem.

we now get teams to take penalties in 1 race so they can use another batch of engines.

You really dont understand engineering do you.

The engines are on the absolute limit all the time, its just that we understand exactly where the limit is now so dont cross it. Even if each driver were allowed a new non-fuel limited engine every session they still wouldnt break down in the race anymore because we can push them to the limit without going over it.

Also you dont seem to understand competition either. Nobody ever wins anything by retiring on lap 7. So no team is ever going to run a car that breaks down all the time unless they are completely incompetent... which they aren't.

And again, how do fragile cars beaking down half way through a race make for exciting close racing?

[zac510]

Manoah2u, did you really just write that the engines are not pushed to the limit, and then in the very next line acknowledge that they have to take engine penalties [because their previous engines blew up]?

[Pierce89]

it's rather simple really.

because of the restriction of using just 5 engines a season, the engines are not pushed to their limits.
because of fuel limit, the engines are not pushed to their limits.
because of artificial tire wear risk, the cars are not pushed to their limits.

not being able to push to the limits brings borefest.
being at the limit brings a danger of DNF.

all or nothing is no longer part of f1, its 'lets tone it down so we atleast get something'. that is not racing.
that is the inherent problem.

we now get teams to take penalties in 1 race so they can use another batch of engines.

You really dont understand engineering do you.

The engines are on the absolute limit all the time, its just that we understand exactly where the limit is now so dont cross it. Even if each driver were allowed a new non-fuel limited engine every session they still wouldnt break down in the race anymore because we can push them to the limit without going over it.

Also you dont seem to understand competition either. Nobody ever wins anything by retiring on lap 7. So no team is ever going to run a car that breaks down all the time unless they are completely incompetent... which they aren't.

And again, how do fragile cars beaking down half way through a race make for exciting close racing?

I'll leave it at that, trying to explain engineering to children on the internet is a bit of a non-starter.

I do believe that if they got a fresh PU for every weekend they would push them much harder and there would be more mechanical failures. The rules that cause one failure to cascade into problems throughout the season causes them to run much more conservatively than they would otherwise.

[Facts Only]

it's rather simple really.

because of the restriction of using just 5 engines a season, the engines are not pushed to their limits.
because of fuel limit, the engines are not pushed to their limits.
because of artificial tire wear risk, the cars are not pushed to their limits.

not being able to push to the limits brings borefest.
being at the limit brings a danger of DNF.

all or nothing is no longer part of f1, its 'lets tone it down so we atleast get something'. that is not racing.
that is the inherent problem.

we now get teams to take penalties in 1 race so they can use another batch of engines.

You really dont understand engineering do you.

The engines are on the absolute limit all the time, its just that we understand exactly where the limit is now so dont cross it. Even if each driver were allowed a new non-fuel limited engine every session they still wouldnt break down in the race anymore because we can push them to the limit without going over it.

Also you dont seem to understand competition either. Nobody ever wins anything by retiring on lap 7. So no team is ever going to run a car that breaks down all the time unless they are completely incompetent... which they aren't.

And again, how do fragile cars beaking down half way through a race make for exciting close racing?

I'll leave it at that, trying to explain engineering to children on the internet is a bit of a non-starter.

I do believe that if they got a fresh PU for every weekend they would push them much harder and there would be more mechanical failures. The rules that cause one failure to cascade into problems throughout the season causes them to run much more conservatively than they would otherwise.

You can believe what you like, I'll stick to what I know from actual experience working on these things.

[Manoah2u]

it's rather simple really.

because of the restriction of using just 5 engines a season, the engines are not pushed to their limits.
because of fuel limit, the engines are not pushed to their limits.
because of artificial tire wear risk, the cars are not pushed to their limits.

not being able to push to the limits brings borefest.
being at the limit brings a danger of DNF.

all or nothing is no longer part of f1, its 'lets tone it down so we atleast get something'. that is not racing.
that is the inherent problem.

we now get teams to take penalties in 1 race so they can use another batch of engines.

You really dont understand engineering do you.

The engines are on the absolute limit all the time, its just that we understand exactly where the limit is now so dont cross it. Even if each driver were allowed a new non-fuel limited engine every session they still wouldnt break down in the race anymore because we can push them to the limit without going over it.

nonsense, Ferrari had breakdowns, Renault had breakdowns in 2014 and 2015 and was rubbish.
by "we understand" you mean we have knowledge of material structure so 'we' can more or less predict breaking points.
the fact that we dont 100% know certainty, makes it exciting.

and absolutely no, they are not pushed to their absolute limits. thats why there is fuel saving during the race, and when 1 or 2 safety cars have been around, they can 'up' their engine to a level they dont have to worry about fuel anymore.

lesson here if you still dont get it: theyre NOT running on MAX power. they CANT run on max power because they are block and consumption restricted. If they could run more engines, in other words, wear down engines more, then they could use more of its potential.
because of the fuel limit, they are never able to achieve their fullest potential.

if you still dont get it: in laymen terms, you drive a Ferrari LaFerrari but because you need to be 'green' you can only fuel it once for your travel. so you are not able to push it to the max to reach its destination. you are thus UNABLE to use the potential of the car. in other words; you have a LaFerrari but must drive it like it's your granny's honda civic.
even if you would not have the fuel restriction, you are only allowed one engine for the entire route, so there you are,
on the nurburgring, pumped having a ferrari, you see all the track records, and you can't even get close because if you push the engine to the max, it'll risk blowing up and so you will NEVER get near that record.

it's technical castration.

Also you dont seem to understand competition either. Nobody ever wins anything by retiring on lap 7. So no team is ever going to run a car that breaks down all the time unless they are completely incompetent... which they aren't.

And again, how do fragile cars beaking down half way through a race make for exciting close racing?

I'll leave it at that, trying to explain engineering to children on the internet is a bit of a non-starter.

children on internet? you must make a lot of friends in life. you are the one not getting it.
i wonder whether you actually have seen a race pre-schumacher. in the era of Senna, Piquet, Lauda, etcetera.

ill leave it at you personally not being able to grasp anything beyond your own imagination.
insulting other members is what's childish, so enjoy being the agrovated kid here.

[Manoah2u]

Manoah2u, did you really just write that the engines are not pushed to the limit, and then in the very next line acknowledge that they have to take engine penalties [because their previous engines blew up]?

yes, i do.

compared to 2 years ago, the engines they're running this year have been developed further to be more reliable.
they have to to be able to make the amount of races on 1 engine because of the engine restrictions.

making engines more reliable inherently results in engines not being pushed to their possible limits.
the limit is reliability, not performance, and thats why we're suffering from years and years and years of technical
development of engines but despite being paired to a hybrid system, they're a far cry from the v10's like we had
in 2004 just to name a year.

Claims like 'we're close to older records' are fun and all but go nowhere if we forget that today they have 2 engines,
the electric and the combustion.
if we'd use current electrics on 2004 engines, they'd be absolute monsters that will shake the living daylights out of
the turbo monsters of the 80s.

again, technical castration.