Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Diesel wrote:Agree about the RPM limit, it's silly really. The engines are homolgated, and they are forced to make them last several races, why do they need an RPM limit on top of that?
Big +1. Also, couldn't that kind of thinking be extended to other rules? I believe someone mentioned above scrapping all the pedantry and extremely specific rules and just have a simple set of well thought out rules that allow flexibility and innovation without turning the sport into a free-for-all...
Diesel wrote:Agree about the RPM limit, it's silly really. The engines are homolgated, and they are forced to make them last several races, why do they need an RPM limit on top of that?
Big +1. Also, couldn't that kind of thinking be extended to other rules? I believe someone mentioned above scrapping all the pedantry and extremely specific rules and just have a simple set of well thought out rules that allow flexibility and innovation without turning the sport into a free-for-all...
Amen to that one.
What do I feel is broken in F1? The powers in F1 being a bunch of rich, profit driven wankers. They make "sporting" decisions, that are designed to increase profit, and have no understanding of how it's damaging the sport.
For example, it's absolutely crazy that F1 circuits around the world come out of an F1 weekend, having made a loss.
The sooner FOM and (less so these days) the FIA replaces all these old business codgers, the better.
My first reaction was the same as ^^ until I thought about the fact that then you'd be paying for an engine development race to rev higher and still last longer.
I have to agree with most of you. Esp. Hangaku about the circuits losing money over a weekend. Crazy! I also think that the engine department should get a jump start and begin to create differences in performance for us. I loved the engine race between Ferrari, BMW, and Benz between 2000 and 2005.
I have a suggestion to make. What if Bernie & Co gave a larger portion of their television income to each team?
"Nowadays Ecclestone takes 50% of all revenues, but we are supposed to be able to reduce our costs by 50%" ~ Flavio Briatore. This revenue is estimated to be between $500-750 million annually. Please correct me if I am wrong I got this off wikipedia and f1fanatic.
If Bernie were to agree to a 70-80% cut for the teams and if this money were to be shared evenly among the teams instead of reflective of championship ending positions and possible other biases (most likely towards ferrari) I am sure we will solve many of the budget problems for the smaller privateer teams.
Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions. ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
volarchico wrote:My first reaction was the same as ^^ until I thought about the fact that then you'd be paying for an engine development race to rev higher and still last longer.
No, I mean engines under current state of development restrictions, but with the possibility to let them go to say 18500 rpm for a few seconds. I am convinced they can do it without trouble.
Maybe even allow this when KERS is active. The aim is to build a reasonable speed difference for a few seconds, when teams deem they need to take a bit of risk, but without abusing the engine.
F1PitRadio @F1PitRadio : MSC, "Sorry guys, there's not more in it"
Spa 2012
Dragonfly wrote:The aim is to build a reasonable speed difference for a few seconds, when teams deem they need to take a bit of risk, but without abusing the engine.
Well why not simply remove the limit altogether and allow the engine speed to go upwards of 21,000 if the teams wish. Heck, if they want to abuse the engine allow them the freedom to choose to do this instead of the FIA wagging their finger and telling them what they can and cannot do. Surely with a limit on how many engines they are allowed to use for the season the limitation on engine revolutions is irrelevant?
Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions. ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
@Jester Maroc
I completely agree.
But I did not suggest it since IMHO it is too brave for the ability of the FIA and the teams to take resolute decisions
As we can see they easily get frightened by their bravery about far smaller changes and when the new idea gets finally implemented in the rules it is usually already highly restricted to the extent it does not produce positive outcomes.
While my view is that teams must be given more freedom to choose how to compete.
F1PitRadio @F1PitRadio : MSC, "Sorry guys, there's not more in it"
Spa 2012
1. The cars are far too powerful and heavy. Cut power by about 33% and gross starting weight by about 20-30%. Restrict gearboxes to five speeds.
2. The current aero rules produce too much induced drag. Allow much larger flatter wings.
3. Restrict tyre use considerably. Cast off marbles are ruining the racing.
This has been bugging me for ages, and since we're bitching and moaning here...
F1 "journalism" is horribly, grotesquely broken. In fact, it's a compound fracture with massive blood loss.
A surface complaint of mine is that I'm weary of being endlessly reminded that McLaren is a Woking-based team, Renault is a Enstone-based outfit, Williams is a Grove-based squad and so on and so on. That's just lazy writing, and it irritates the --- out of me.
What's more problematic is the penchant of so-called frontline "news" outlets publishing, word for word, interviews conducted by a team's own press office. In literally no other arena will you find a journalistic institution worth its salt posting as news the polished, unquestioned output of a news subject. Even ESPN here in America, which just barely qualifies as sports journalism instead of sports promotion, conducts its own interviews. Hell, NASCAR doesn't get away with canned interviews.
Say what you will about the logistics of serving the global audience of a global sport, it's flat-out irresponsible for the media to simply tow the line of the subjects they cover. I think a lot of the problems facing F1, from competition to its horrible economic system, could be better addressed if the public, the sport's consumers, were better informed and could use that information to drive the discussion. Instead, F1 is almost completely insulated from far-reaching credible scrutiny. And as a result, F1 - specifically FOM - does whatever the hell it wants to do, consequences be damned...because there are none.
FOM took the power of the fans, the power of their purses as a reflection of what's right and what is wrong, when it tied F1's revenues solely to track fees and television licensing. All that's left is for an active media to ask real questions and inform consumers as to what's really going on.
The worst offender on this front – people continuously trying to claim there isn't enough overtaking. You know what the most exciting bit of the australia race was? Button trying desperately every lap to get past massa and getting more and more desperate every time round... I'm pretty sure DRS robbed us of a few more battles like this one.
I agree!
The only area that is broken is Mr. E's brain.
Finishing races is important, but racing is more important.
