If FIA allowed the OPTION of 2-seaters with fenders for F1?

[g-force_addict]

Would teams go for it?
I mean F1 would have two design options: Either open wheel single seaters or fendered two seaters.

If two seaters were required to carry two people for the whole race, would the co-driver make something useful to reduce the driver workload or to get better lap times?

Of course, I daydream about F1 becoming more road car related.

[RB7ate9]

Something like an F1 car vs a freely-designed and budgeted LMP roadster?

If you can have longer race distances with them running different tire compounds (F1's pirelli gum vs two-seater durable bridgestones) or different fuels (diesel vs petrol), it'd be interesting.

I think what you're really looking for is less WEC in your F1 than more F1 in your WEC

[xxChrisxx]

I don't understand peoples obsession with trying to consantly change Grand Prix cars to be similar to the cars of another racing series.

No big budget racing series is road related on anything other than a superficial level, as racing and road driving try to acieve different things. This means technology is developed and optimsed to achieve different criteria. That's not to say lessons don't trickle down, but people get this wildly wrong image that F1 becomig more road related equates to 'my car is full of F1 technology'.

Want something that looks more road related? Watch touring cars, or GTs.

[mzivtins]

I was thinking something similar today, in the respect that the driver engineers are effectively the co-drivers... albeit they only relay information to the driver and all watch critical systems. But if the FIA would allow F1 teams to change settings from the pit wall again, then the driver load would be reduced significantly and the cars managed much better.

So i do like the idea of a co-driver, but more in the sense of it being the garage who are the co-driver, i really do wonder if we would see less failures in F1 in terms of mechanical and driver mistakes?

[CMSMJ1]

Of course, I daydream about F1 becoming more road car related.

Well, with the greatest respect, go watch something else.

F1 is not road relevant. Never needs to be - it is pure prototype and so should be left well alone.

WEC or WTCC are road relevant..so, perhaps daydream about them getting faster?

[Cam]

Of course, I daydream about F1 becoming more road car related.

Well, with the greatest respect, go watch something else.

F1 is not road relevant. Never needs to be - it is pure prototype and so should be left well alone.

WEC or WTCC are road relevant..so, perhaps daydream about them getting faster?

Ferrari disagree with you. To tell people to go watch something else based on an assumption proved to be incorrect, should be food for thought when you post poor quality info. your post is a fine example of -1.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/06/sport ... index.html

[xxChrisxx]

Ferrari disagree with you. To tell people to go watch something else based on an assumption proved to be incorrect, should be food for thought when you post poor quality info. your post is a fine example of -1.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/06/sport ... index.html

I'm afraid yours is also a low qualiy post in that event. The link you have posted has a flaw, as it's by no means 'evidence'. It's one man's opinion from a team who have a history of political maneuvering to push their own agenda.

It's an extremely murky area, due to subjective nature of how far you take the link. Is it technology that is directly bolted on? technology that requires only minor changes? Technology with major changes? At what point do you break the link and say, this is an independently derived system.

Eventually you get to such a spurioius stretch that it's only good maketing that is the link between the two.

In most cases 'f1 derived' technology in road cars, are two seperately developed systems becuase the F1 requiremeants are so far removed from road use requirements, it just has the same name slapped on it.

[Cam]

Ferrari disagree with you. To tell people to go watch something else based on an assumption proved to be incorrect, should be food for thought when you post poor quality info. your post is a fine example of -1.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/06/sport ... index.html

I'm afraid yours is also a low qualiy post in that event. The link you have posted has a flaw, as it's by no means 'evidence'. It's one man's opinion from a team who have a history of political maneuvering to push their own agenda.

It's an extremely murky area, due to subjective nature of how far you take the link. Is it technology that is directly bolted on? technology that requires only minor changes? Technology with major changes? At what point do you break the link and say, this is an independently derived system.

Eventually you get to such a spurioius stretch that it's only good maketing that is the link between the two.

In most cases 'f1 derived' technology in road cars, are two seperately developed systems becuase the F1 requiremeants are so far removed from road use requirements, it just has the same name slapped on it.

I guess it was more of a point to try not to attack a member and tell them to go elsewhere, but while we're here, lets re-look at the reasons for the 2014 engine change. Why do that?

"We're not going to get manufacturers come in with the V8 formula we have now; nobody's interested," Brawn said. "The new engine does create fresh opportunities for manufacturers to come in and that's another reason why we need a new engine. Because who's going to come in and build a V8 18,000rpm engine? No manufacturers are interested, so it gives a fresh opportunity and a more relevant specification for more manufacturers to join."

Note: more relevant specification. So it's not one mans view. Full read here:
http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/53034.html

[xxChrisxx]

I guess it was more of a point to try not to attack a member and tell them to go elsewhere, but while we're here, lets re-look at the reasons for the 2014 engine change. Why do that?
Note: more relevant specification. So it's not one mans view. Full read here:
http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/53034.html

I said basically the same thing. It's not an attack, it's a rather sensible suggestion to watch another racing series as well.

Alhough this is off topic, i'll respond to it.
If road relevancy is the key to all this? What was the reason for changing the proposed formula from a I4 to a V6, when the car industry (in the EU anyway) is swapping V6 road engines for downsized I4's.

The new proposed formula doesn't even use the same level of technology already found on read cars. Such as variable geomety turbochargers, etc.

So they've deliberately made regulation decisions to move away from the general direction that the mass car industry in he EU is going in. It's becuase each party thinks it will benefit them, the simplest way to justify it, is to claim it fulfils the buzzword of the week.

And manufacturers do not go into F1 with the aim of developing road car technology, because the major OEM R&D budgets dwarf F1 budgets already. It's all about maketing and brand identitiy.

[Cam]

2 seaters with fenders, I think we're on topic discussing road relevance.

F1 just needs to be 'more relevant'. That's the defining part. Manufacturers need some links to help sell cars. That's what I think they're trying to get at. Don't be so literal with the 'road relevance' thing I.e '4 doors and iphone mp3 player, F1 is never going to be like that'. It's more about giving manufacturers tools they use to sell products. In that sense, becoming more relevant is very important.

You don't need an f1 car to be road ready, however drawing easy to link comparisons won't hurt 'everyday' car manufacturers from looking to join F1, bringing in new money and expanding the market share. It's business.

[xxChrisxx]

I agree with the sentiment of that post. I suppose it's the subtle difference between 'technology relevence - same family of technology' and 'road relevence - ie applicable to road going cars'. I agree that motorsport should be moving with current road car technology, ie forced induction and lower drag etc, and that F1 has fallen woefully behind.

And I think we have a first, a point where people agree in a thread!



Some further points though:

1. Does it matter how relevent it is, if it's fun to watch? Would someone wach a road relevent series if it was dull?

2. Regarding the OP suggestion of essentially changing car design to be similar to a GT/LMP car. Why? When we already have cars like that in other series.

[CMSMJ1]

Of course, I daydream about F1 becoming more road car related.

Well, with the greatest respect, go watch something else.

F1 is not road relevant. Never needs to be - it is pure prototype and so should be left well alone.

WEC or WTCC are road relevant..so, perhaps daydream about them getting faster?

Ferrari disagree with you. To tell people to go watch something else based on an assumption proved to be incorrect, should be food for thought when you post poor quality info. your post is a fine example of -1.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/06/sport ... index.html

No, am sorry.

The OP is looking to find something in F1 that is not there. It already exists in other formulae. So, not really an option to go forth and fornicate, but to go an see what you want to see in another series. F1 will not provide it.

All of this -1 stuff bores me to death. What happened to people being normal and no longer concerned with pretend scores?

I digress..

ref the road relevance - F1 is not. SImple as that. Road cars have very little in common with F1 in braking, drivetrain and aero or pretty much anything other than number of wheels and the pedals to make it go and stop.

[Cam]

1. Does it matter how relevant it is, if it's fun to watch?

No. A race series can be as irrelevant as it likes. Whether they can keep getting funding is another question.

Would someone wach a road relevent series if it was dull?

I sat through I think 7 hours of V8 racing last week, most of which was boring, only to be left with 15 minutes at the end of complete nail biting drama to a fantastic finish. I was rewarded for my effort. Most series don't work out like that each race - neither does your sporting team win every game - but you keep watching and you do get rewarded. As long as there is the 'probability' of action/drama, most people will watch to some extent.

Regarding the OP suggestion of essentially changing car design to be similar to a GT/LMP car. Why? When we already have cars like that in other series.

Good question.F1 is a formula. A series of rules that teams build a car too. If the formula says to have 2 seats and fenders, well the teams have to build the best car to those specs. F1 is a business. If there is more money to be made by changing the series, they will do it.

Look at the noses on the cars this year. There was so much chatter about it, now, nothing. No-one cares. Other factors are drawing interest and people have moved on. There is no reason why F1 couldn't become a 2 seater series. IMO, that will never happen, nor should it - but it could.

This comes back to the good old 'purist' debate. Most people on here know I'm a purist and would rather see F1 turn back the clock and become a pure prototype series with wacky designs, 6 wheels and everything else. I'm also a realist. The heady days of excess are over. We have counties (multiple) on their knees with debt and entire populations ready to riot. No sane person is going to sink billions into a race car that no other purpose in life.

ROI (Return On Investment) - is what any business, constructor, team, manufacturer is looking for and when the teams feel that ROI shrink enough, then we'll see what changes they're all prepared to wear, or leave over. Only time will tell.

[Just_a_fan]

Ferrari disagree with you. To tell people to go watch something else based on an assumption proved to be incorrect, should be food for thought when you post poor quality info. your post is a fine example of -1.

S'funny - I agree with him and I gave him a +1 because of it...

[RB7ate9]

If anyone is looking for more road relevance, then you'll have to petition the FIA to let up some of the regulations.

It was due to the freedom from many regulations, or exploitation of loopholes, that allowed teams to take any technologies they could find or create to put into the cars. With the more stringent regulations, the maximum innovation that can be created comes from aero improvements that have little to no relevance with road cars.

Let F1 have computerized ride height, fans, multi-wheels, unlimited battery capacity and charging (gasp! electric-dependent F1 cars?!?!?) to make it at all road-relevant. Anything otherwise will just make F1 look like it's trying to catch up to the rest of the world. That's not the point of F1.