Liberty is ruining F1

[ubuysa]

All this assumes that F1 viewers only watch the lead cars. Already this year an exciting battle is developing for 4th place between five teams, how much more exciting does it need to be than that?

Plus, Ferrari are dropping the ball and RB look like they could well challenge them soon. So the silver arrows are winning all the time? So what? The midfield is already producing the close racing and exciting battles, does it matter that they're not for 1st place?

Of course it matters that there is no close battle up front. Are we seriously arguing that people watch to see who comes in third in any form of competition? Surely you don’t believe that?

But let’s suppose we are ok watching who comes in third, problem is the TV broadcast don’t focus on the mid field.

Yes, I am suggesting that people watch to see who comes in 3rd, and 4th, and all the way to 10th. I watch F1, and I know many other do too, for the racing and not just to see who crosses the line first.

And you're wrong that the TV doesn't focus on the midfield because it absolutely does, particularly when there is a procession up front.

I'm very happy to watch Renault, Haas, Torro Rosso, Racing Point, and McLaren slug it out. Of course, when Ferrari and Red Bull start to seriously challenge Mercedes things will be different, but to claim that there is no racing just because the first four places are a given is untrue.

[strad]

Why wouldn’t that additional effort/investment be rewarded with results?

That's part of the problem. They often invest literally millions trying to gain a few hundredths of a second, especially in aero bits, only to find they don't work in real life like they do in the computer. Witness Ferrari's two floors they have tried this year or when some aero bit gets torn off and the car does not lose speed and in some cases goes faster.
.
Yes there has always been top teams and not so top teams but they were closer together and on any given day the not so top team could win or if not win give that top team a run for their money.

[FrukostScones]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14342 ... save-costs

that sounds a little half-assed. (and also sounds like some secret obstruction is already going on )

[mzivtins]

Remember that Data is meaningless, information and analytics derived from that data is where the worth is.

Forcing teams to share data isn't a problem or losing a competitive edge if the other teams fail to turn that data into information effectively.

Sharing data will only shift the costs to huge analytical systems with lots of polymorphism etc to adapt non specific types (merc's data schema maybe hugely different from Renaults for example)

I'm a cloud data architect, previously worked for WPP, google, facebook etc, this problem is prevalent everywhere, everyone says they want data, they don't, they want information.

If sharing data is seen as a solution, then why not give the teams more of the most valuable data, their own: Allow for as much testing time as there is race time, allow for that refinement of what a team has in its chosen direction.

[Zynerji]

I've called for data sharing for a long time...

I've even written a white paper on how the design could be implemented via blockchain, and allow fan involvement in crunching data and processing cfd/fea.

Unfortunately, no one cared.

[63l8qrrfy6]

I've called for data sharing for a long time...

I've even written a white paper on how the design could be implemented via blockchain, and allow fan involvement in crunching data and processing cfd/fea.

Unfortunately, no one cared.

care to share ?

[Zynerji]

I shared the fundamentals here before, and was rather dismissed.

I'll look for it and type it up for you, but it was fundamentally just setting up a private Ethereum chain, and running openFoam and openCAD software on the chain using distributed state machines. Teams buy tokens to process, fans sell extra cycles to the chain.
Early access to designs for journalists, and a simplifying of scrutineering as any part uploaded to the chain would be compliant if shared.

No one seems to like the idea. But it would require a minimum budget cap instead of a maximum.

It's a completely self balancing system that is immutability tracked and published. I thought it would be better recieved... but alas, it was not, so I never really got past the first 6 hand written pages.

[DiogoBrand]

Why the hell does the name "Formula" means it can't have standard parts? Most of the Formula series I know have completely standard cars: Formula 3, Formula 2, Formula Indy, Super Formula.

I understand people getting annoyed with the push for standard parts, but this argument makes negative sense.

[Zynerji]

Why the hell does the name "Formula" means it can't have standard parts? Most of the Formula series I know have completely standard cars: Formula 3, Formula 2, Formula Indy, Super Formula.

I understand people getting annoyed with the push for standard parts, but this argument makes negative sense.

I think if you standardize anything, it's the software and operational items (wheel guns, safety suits, fuel delivery, etc).

The only real restrictions currently in place are to control obscene spending. Shared data would prevent that and allow open regs due to easy ability to copy and implement.

[dans79]

Why the hell does the name "Formula" means it can't have standard parts? Most of the Formula series I know have completely standard cars: Formula 3, Formula 2, Formula Indy, Super Formula.

I understand people getting annoyed with the push for standard parts, but this argument makes negative sense.

None of those have been actual formula racing in a long time, if ever. The powers that be are using formula purely for marketing to draw in people who dont know any better.

[Zynerji]

I thought "Formula" just meant an agreed upon set of regulations that define the boundaries of what shall not be allowed.

It's the addition of "must be included" that I find myself on the fence about...

[Cold Fussion]

The 'tyre performance' graphics used during the Japanese GP were an absolute embarrassment.

[strad]

yep,,, downright silly.

[gshevlin]

IMHO Liberty are being far too kind to existing teams.
There are 3 teams (Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull) who have the capability, with their current deals with liberty, to almost break even on their f1 programs.
The other teams are having to spend somebody else's money in order to continue to be even competitive (as in, being somewhere in the midfield, but with no chance of winning).
This is not a sustainable model.
F1 may be about to lose Renault again. They are not winning, even with a customer team (McLaren) that is Best Of The Rest. They are going to lose their single customer team after next year.
Haas is a risk. I think Gene Haas is not happy with the economics of his involvement.
Racing Point exists because of the involvement of Laurence Stroll. If he loses interest, they are doomed.
Alfa Romeo is owned mostly by the secretive Finn Rausing, who is very wealthy. However, very wealthy people, as a general rule, never spend their own money in business. The are far too smart.
Alph...er, Toro Rosso only exists as long as Red Bull continues to fund it.
Williams is struggling to field 2 competitive cars, and is years away from being able to compete properly in the midfield.
McLaren has shareholders with deep pockets, but also with a lack of willingness to throw good money after bad. McLaren can always revert to Indycar.
The cost cap is way too high, and driver salaries are excluded. 2 bad decisions right there
Liberty clearly blinked earlier in the year over fundamentals such as the powerplant rules (they retained the MGU-H which zeroed the interest of any other manufacturers, partly because of the advantage it gave incumbents).
I see all sorts of sub-optimal outcomes from the current negotiations.

[Andres125sx]

I see all sorts of sub-optimal outcomes from the current negotiations.

Agree, but even so that´s still a step forward only Liberty dared to take