When a spectacle becomes a parody of his own

[zac510]

The track design matters too. In the 2000s there was a problem with homogenised tracks, which meant the car design and setup converged. Now the tracks are getting a bit diverse again we're seeing some chassis (teams) that perform better on some types of circuits than others. More diverse tracks can only help this more. It's a good chance to give a midfield team a shot at a podium too, if their car is better than average at a particular track type.

[Jolle]

Maybe the constant change in technical regulations is the problem? I remember whenever the technical regulations are somewhat set for a few seasons, the gaps between cars starts to decrease. It's radical technical regulation changes that lead to bigger gaps, because that's just like a reset button.

I believe we have seen three big technical regulation changes in the last 4 seasons:
- Hybrid era V6
- Wider cars, lower rear wings, bigger tires
- Halo

To me that's massive, whereas if you compare this to late 90's and early 2000, I believe we didn't had that massive changes from 1999 to 2005? Is it?

I think this, and the rules for construction being so restrictive is the main cause. Id there were different ways to build the car, the cars would have better performance in different areas. The best example is at the start of the previous turbo era. Option one, nimble car, advantage around corners and twisty bits. Option 2. brute force, fly by on the straight.
With all cars the same weight engine type and basic design where one is good/not-so-good they all wil be.

I agree that a longer stable rule period helps to, at least at the front, bring the cars closer. I also think they made the mistake of making the cars wider. All data and experiences in the past pointed towards less "racy" cars and with the increased downforce making it harder to overtake or even be following close. They try to fix that now.

The different cars in the late 70s and early 80ies wasn't a real choice to have two sets of rules but more Renault taking the plunge into the deep end with the turbo. It would almost be like in 2014 it would been allowed to still run the 2013 car. It was pretty clear that turbo was the way to go and within a few seasons (the cars ran for several years back then) everybody had a turbo and all had a nimble, small, powerful turbo rocket. Teams with big budgets had a V6, others a l4.
Throughout the history of F1 there has always be a concept within the rules that was king above the rest. In the 60's it was a V8 bolted straight to the chassis, in the 80's a turbo and a carbon chassis, during the 90ies a V10 with lots of electronics, etc etc. There was a lot of money burned with choosing the wrong concept for a team. It took a revolution at Ferrari to switch from their V12 to the proven winning V10.

With more open rules, or different formula's, you get lots of different concepts the first year and the winning one will be copied the year after, with all the teams that choose wrong on the back foot and with massive budget spendings. Next to that, if you have two choices, lets say, a v4 or v6, a team like mercedes will develop both to choose which one delivers best, while with a mandated v6, they only need the budget to develop one. etc etc

[Big Tea]

Maybe the constant change in technical regulations is the problem? I remember whenever the technical regulations are somewhat set for a few seasons, the gaps between cars starts to decrease. It's radical technical regulation changes that lead to bigger gaps, because that's just like a reset button.

I believe we have seen three big technical regulation changes in the last 4 seasons:
- Hybrid era V6
- Wider cars, lower rear wings, bigger tires
- Halo

To me that's massive, whereas if you compare this to late 90's and early 2000, I believe we didn't had that massive changes from 1999 to 2005? Is it?

I think this, and the rules for construction being so restrictive is the main cause. Id there were different ways to build the car, the cars would have better performance in different areas. The best example is at the start of the previous turbo era. Option one, nimble car, advantage around corners and twisty bits. Option 2. brute force, fly by on the straight.
With all cars the same weight engine type and basic design where one is good/not-so-good they all wil be.

With more open rules, or different formula's, you get lots of different concepts the first year and the winning one will be copied the year after, with all the teams that choose wrong on the back foot and with massive budget spendings. Next to that, if you have two choices, lets say, a v4 or v6, a team like mercedes will develop both to choose which one delivers best, while with a mandated v6, they only need the budget to develop one. etc etc

But they will spend the same amount in F1, if its all on one concept or spread over several. Either the concept has to be simple enough for new builders to get up and running in a couple of years or there needs to be a 'back door' such as Haas have used. For instance, and this is just off the top of my head, so do not get into the nitty- gritty, if an alternative car option of say 500kg 1ltr 4 cyl but limit to 1000cc. I know the problems now are going to be the weight of the safety 'cell' but just an example. Also, it took the gumption of Renault to make the dive to turbo to make it happen. There is not similar opportunity today. You fit this engine full stop.

[Phil]

IMHO when the leader can go several seconds slower than posible and still the second car can´t even consider an overtake, something is wrong with that formula.

I have a brilliant idea. Maybe F1 should race on air strips that are 100m wide so that overtaking will not be a problem. If that's too silly for you, how about an oval?

When you introduce corners, regardless how vulnerable cars are to dirty air, overtaking becomes difficult. But think about it the other way; If overtaking was too easy, you'd pretty much end up with the qualifying order by race end anyway, no matter how much strategic element you add to bring cars into traffic. Does that make it better? The order at the end is the same, yet at least we get some "entertainment" value along the way.

Or we can just accept that right now, F1 has 21 different tracks with a lot of diversity. We have tracks where passing is relatively easy, we have tracks that are highspeed, we have low downforce circuits, we have high downforce circuits, we have street circuits where any mistake is likely a DNF and, we have... yes, we also have some circuits where overtaking is close to impossible, that *shock* allow drivers to dictate the pace of those behind for strategic reasons.

We should appreciate the fact that each of these tracks pose different challenges to overcome and to succeed on. Both Monaco and Singapore have a legitimate values: They may not offer the most spectacular racing, but they place the importance on qualifying and emphasis on strategy during the race. I'll take that diversity over 21 Silverstones where Hamilton came from dead last back to 2nd any day of the week.

Quite frankly, I'm getting annoyed over this obsession that everyone thinks something needs to be changed or different. You have people that seemingly just want chaos and entertainment, others at least see the value in having genuine and authentic motor racing where passing is difficult, or sometimes impossible. It's just not possible to have everything on every single track. Appreciate the fact that we do get variety and that the F1 circus is heading to Socchi and we have no idea who will win and if it will be a stormer of a race or one where little happens.

[BrunoH]

i think they should bring back refuel, even if its to take a massive weight of the cars.. they are so heavy and so long these days..

[WaikeCU]

I think this, and the rules for construction being so restrictive is the main cause. Id there were different ways to build the car, the cars would have better performance in different areas. The best example is at the start of the previous turbo era. Option one, nimble car, advantage around corners and twisty bits. Option 2. brute force, fly by on the straight.
With all cars the same weight engine type and basic design where one is good/not-so-good they all wil be.

With more open rules, or different formula's, you get lots of different concepts the first year and the winning one will be copied the year after, with all the teams that choose wrong on the back foot and with massive budget spendings. Next to that, if you have two choices, lets say, a v4 or v6, a team like mercedes will develop both to choose which one delivers best, while with a mandated v6, they only need the budget to develop one. etc etc

But they will spend the same amount in F1, if its all on one concept or spread over several. Either the concept has to be simple enough for new builders to get up and running in a couple of years or there needs to be a 'back door' such as Haas have used. For instance, and this is just off the top of my head, so do not get into the nitty- gritty, if an alternative car option of say 500kg 1ltr 4 cyl but limit to 1000cc. I know the problems now are going to be the weight of the safety 'cell' but just an example. Also, it took the gumption of Renault to make the dive to turbo to make it happen. There is not similar opportunity today. You fit this engine full stop.

It's a contradiction really. The thing about cost saving is true with limited amount of crucial parts such as PU's and gearboxes, heck even tires (life), but then you introduce radical technical changes, which requires a large investment by the teams, so you can't hardly call it cost saving anymore... I think F1 needs to really look at themselves and check the financial health of teams before introducing any technical changes for the future.

[TwanV]

In terms of racing/overtaking there are benefits to be made in terms of aerodynamics but I agree that in comparison to the grooved tire/TC years of 2000-2010 the current formula is much more exciting to watch. Refueling is a terrible idea imho, sure the cars will go faster but overtaking will be gone, as it becomes too easy to improve position just on fuel strategy while pitting.

Let's not forget motor racing is fundamentally flawed, if all drivers would be at their respective position ranked on race pace, there wouldn't be any action at all! it would just be a procession. So, F1 needs chaotic factors to mix things up as it were. I agree with the thread-starter that if the laptime difference between quali and the race is dramatically large, it tells us that the driver is pacing himself, not pushing. While that has always been a part of motor racing there is just diminished potential for something out of the ordinary to happen, like driver error or mechanical failure, up to the point where the whole show becomes a bit predictive after the first 3 laps.

[Jolle]

With more open rules, or different formula's, you get lots of different concepts the first year and the winning one will be copied the year after, with all the teams that choose wrong on the back foot and with massive budget spendings. Next to that, if you have two choices, lets say, a v4 or v6, a team like mercedes will develop both to choose which one delivers best, while with a mandated v6, they only need the budget to develop one. etc etc

But they will spend the same amount in F1, if its all on one concept or spread over several. Either the concept has to be simple enough for new builders to get up and running in a couple of years or there needs to be a 'back door' such as Haas have used. For instance, and this is just off the top of my head, so do not get into the nitty- gritty, if an alternative car option of say 500kg 1ltr 4 cyl but limit to 1000cc. I know the problems now are going to be the weight of the safety 'cell' but just an example. Also, it took the gumption of Renault to make the dive to turbo to make it happen. There is not similar opportunity today. You fit this engine full stop.

It's a contradiction really. The thing about cost saving is true with limited amount of crucial parts such as PU's and gearboxes, heck even tires (life), but then you introduce radical technical changes, which requires a large investment by the teams, so you can't hardly call it cost saving anymore... I think F1 needs to really look at themselves and check the financial health of teams before introducing any technical changes for the future.

Although Formula one costs a lot, there really isn't a financial problem. The big four have no problem with spending so much money, even the only works team really without a big sponsor said last week "money is no problem" (Renault). Even when a team gets into financial trouble, there are more then one willing to invest (as we saw with Force India and now with the financial injection of Latifi at McLaren). Formula one also never has been this close, a while back they introduced the 107% rule to get rid of some opportunists, there hasn't been a team even close, apart from Manor maybe when they ran a year old car. In "the good old days" where many here are referring to, it was quite normal for one team to lap the entire field.

Where they did screw up, was with the opening of new teams for 2009. Lotus, Virgin and Campos just were badly run teams. There are now better rules in place to prevent those opportunistic teams to strand within the first few years.

All the current teams, apart from HAAS have as a factory/company 30years+ experience, changing owners from time til time. The last old experience team that had to close it doors is Liger/Prost I think? And that was all the way back in 2001...

[Just_a_fan]

F1 is a season-long chess game. It is not 90 minutes long. The aim is to get through the season with the most points, not the most number of overtakes or fastest laps.

Of course, one could give points for fastest lap - it might encourage the midfield, but the front teams would rather be super reliable and win points from being on the podium.

[NathanOlder]

Andres; I agree totally. When the McLaren can set fastest lap three quarters of the way thru the race it shows just how much conserving tires affect racing and the race.

Id say pretty much every top formula of motorsport is the same.
Example Moto GP Brno GP.
If with 5 laps to go Pol Espargaro on the KTM came in for a new set of tyres, he was capable of lapping a 1.56.3 as he did that time on the saturday,
Now the fastest lap of the race was set by Lorenzo which was a 1.56.6. Pol qualified 20th I think, which is last on an F1 grid, how is that any different ? Technically the guy who qualified 20th, was capable of doing the fastest lap if he had a new set of tyres which is what KMag did on sunday.

You guys are moaning about something silly in my opinion.

Lewis won with an unusual strategy, a slow strategy, yet no one in the other 19 cars could get near him. SO if he was slow, what does it say about the other 19 fools on the grid ?

[NathanOlder]

F1 is a season-long chess game. It is not 90 minutes long. The aim is to get through the season with the most points, not the most number of overtakes or fastest laps.

Of course, one could give points for fastest lap - it might encourage the midfield, but the front teams would rather be super reliable and win points from being on the podium.

If points were awarded for fastest lap, the Red Bulls would win it every race, being 5th and 6th mostly, they could pit for a new set of tyres, then come out still in 5th and 6th as there is a HUGE gap to 7th 8th ect. It wouldnt change anything other than a few more points for Max and Danny

[Andres125sx]

IMHO when the leader can go several seconds slower than posible and still the second car can´t even consider an overtake, something is wrong with that formula.

I have a brilliant idea. Maybe F1 should race on air strips that are 100m wide so that overtaking will not be a problem. If that's too silly for you, how about an oval?

And how about a normal overtake delta like any other category or any other era in F1? Even some years ago when DF was similar or even higher, overtake delta was much more reasonable and racing was more entertaining, without the need of fake DRS, fake tires, forcing top10 to start with tires wich are not optimal, etc.

When you introduce corners, regardless how vulnerable cars are to dirty air, overtaking becomes difficult.

Corners exists in F1 since day 1 in 1950. Do you think overtaking is as easy/difficult as always? Obviously not, so let me dare to say there are other factors affecting overtaking difficulty, like aerodynamics

Or we can just accept that right now, F1 has 21 different tracks with a lot of diversity. We have tracks where passing is relatively easy, we have tracks that are highspeed, we have low downforce circuits, we have high downforce circuits, we have street circuits where any mistake is likely a DNF and, we have... yes, we also have some circuits where overtaking is close to impossible, that *shock* allow drivers to dictate the pace of those behind for strategic reasons.

We should appreciate the fact that each of these tracks pose different challenges to overcome and to succeed on. Both Monaco and Singapore have a legitimate values: They may not offer the most spectacular racing, but they place the importance on qualifying and emphasis on strategy during the race. I'll take that diversity over 21 Silverstones where Hamilton came from dead last back to 2nd any day of the week.

I appreciate diversity. But I can´t get what´s the relationship between the different tracks and the problem we were talking about

Different tracks have always existed, same as corners in F1 so I think you should look for other factors

Quite frankly, I'm getting annoyed over this obsession that everyone thinks something needs to be changed or different.

And I really get annoyed with people like you obsessed with posting on threads he don´t like.... posting on threads you don´t like to provoke people participating in that thread can be seen as trolling Phil

If you disagree it´s fine. But it´s also fine if I think something need to be changed and start a thread to share my point of view. If you don´t like it, do not click, it is this easy

[Andres125sx]

Andres; I agree totally. When the McLaren can set fastest lap three quarters of the way thru the race it shows just how much conserving tires affect racing and the race.

Id say pretty much every top formula of motorsport is the same.
Example Moto GP Brno GP.
If with 5 laps to go Pol Espargaro on the KTM came in for a new set of tyres, he was capable of lapping a 1.56.3 as he did that time on the saturday,
Now the fastest lap of the race was set by Lorenzo which was a 1.56.6. Pol qualified 20th I think, which is last on an F1 grid, how is that any different ?

Are you serious??

In F1 all cars come in for new set of tires, so not the unfair comparison you´re doing between a car/bike with new tires when the rest are still using the same they started with. It is the same for all

Also, in MotoGP no rider rides at below 107% their qualy laps. Hamilton fast lap in race was 107,2% his pole lap, he wouldn´t qualify for the race with that lap

[NathanOlder]

No moto gp rider has over 100kg fuel your point being.

Fact is the same thing would happen in motogp if they had tyre changes. The slower bikes could set a fastest lap. So yes I am serious.

Are you serious? Please let me know of all the racing series where someone riding or driving the 4th/5th best car/bike would be unable to set a fastest lap with a new set of tyres at the end of a race with no refuelling. As your suggesting F1 is the only one ?

I'd have a good guess that most people who have a problem with F1 , dislike the number 44

[Just_a_fan]

And I really get annoyed with people like you obsessed with posting on threads he don´t like.... posting on threads you don´t like to provoke people participating in that thread can be seen as trolling Phil

If you disagree it´s fine. But it´s also fine if I think something need to be changed and start a thread to share my point of view. If you don´t like it, do not click, it is this easy

So people are only allowed to post on this thread if they agree with you?