Purist vs Spectacle?

[Cam]

Take a circuit, say Spa. What do you think the target lap time should be? Because in a completely unrestricted series with all these technologies you talk about you couldn't have a human driver because the car would be too fast. The human body has upper limits in terms of the G-force that can be sustained and reaction times.

You underestimate what humans can do. In fact, if we don't go there and find out, how will we know the car is too fast? Play it safe in GP3 if you're scared.

With all these latest technologies what jobs do you want the driver themselves to have to do? A lot of the banned technologies, such as ABS and traction control, are tools that help the driver do a better job or do the driver's job for them. How much involvement do you want the driver to actually have and how would you enforce that?

Computers can't replicate instinct and feel, which is what is so wonderful when a driver comes along and tames a beast. Perhaps the ultimate evolution has no driver? F1 should push the boundaries and find out. Again, there's always a place for drivers in NASCAR.

If this is a racing series, how are you going to qualify the cars so that you have some racing? With all the technologies previously discussed the cars are going to be consistent and easy to drive, so having them qualify in speed order will lead to races where the field just spreads out a bit. If the cars are perfect then there would not be any racing at all as drivers could not make a mistake, so how will you either enforce imperfection or introduce racing?

I wouldn't 'enforce imperfection'. Watching a car driver off into the distance is fine by me because it's the whole package that has allowed that. Then I enjoy watching the others try and beat them by making something even better. Domination is not boring when in context. IF you want to see drivers make mistake, watch Moto3, those guys are crazy.

How are you going to control costs and ensure competition? With unlimited technologies you need as close to an unlimited budget as possible, and that is unsustainable for the vast majority of the grid. Instead you'll end up with one or two teams dominating year after year because they can afford to develop new technologies whilst the rest are perpetually trying to play catch up. How will you ensure intra-season interest when one car wins all the races because they have a technology none of the others has?

I have already given you a suggested solution how to remain viable. I can give you more if you like. Again, dominating racing is not boring to some people. We have our likes too. Leave F1 to be what it is, you all have a plether of 'exciting' racing to watch - go watch it - like DTM.

How are you going to maintain commercial interest in this 'sport'? If technology can dominate the series by giving certain cars an edge then how will you attract newcomers to the sport? If only a couple of teams can afford to develop front running cars, why would other manufacturers bother spending vast sums of money just to be also rans? How many different manufacturers do you think an unlimited series could attract?

Again, I have already given you a solution and can give you more. People have money. Companies have money. Just because Williams doesn't don't mean we have to restrict everyone else. If budget is a problem, try karting.

As others have pointed out, if it's all about the cars and the technology then why have a driver's championship?

Until they decide that a driver is just wasted ballast, then a drivers championship is required. It's a team sport, but it's not solely about the driver. What about the HUNDREDS of people behind the scenes. If you want just a drivers championship, try Xbox.

I also find it amusing that the 'purists' have hijacked the word 'purist' and branded all dissenters as favouring 'spectacle'. Why is a driver dominated series a spectacle and impure compared to a car dominated series? Each is pure and each is just a spectacle when viewed from differing points of view. One favours the purity of the drivers battling it out in broadly equal machinery, able to make a difference, and the other favours the purity of the technology where engineers are unrestrained in what they can do but would inevitably lead to a series where the driver has little impact beyond just being good enough and fit enough.

Again, you're missing the point of the 'Purist'. We want F1 to remain the pinnacle. We don't want 'close racing' for the sake of it. We want the the winner to earn it, not fluke it. We want to see measurable results, not best guess and fingers crossed. We want to see flat out racing of the best cars and the best drivers - not 'softly softly' as they eek their way around the track trying not to drive too fast.

People wanting a 'Spectacle' have so many options to supply their needs:
• Formula racing
• Touring car racing
• Sports-car racing
• Production-car racing
• One-make racing
• Stock car racing
• Rallying
• Drag racing
• Off-road racing
• Kart racing

I have only F1 with it's tech intertwined magic. There is nothing else that is/was like it. And now it's gone too. I guess I was hoping we could leave just one category all by itself.

We don't have to homogenise everything.

[myurr]

Firstly thank you Cam for taking the time to reply [...].

Take a circuit, say Spa. What do you think the target lap time should be? Because in a completely unrestricted series with all these technologies you talk about you couldn't have a human driver because the car would be too fast. The human body has upper limits in terms of the G-force that can be sustained and reaction times.

You underestimate what humans can do. In fact, if we don't go there and find out, how will we know the car is too fast? Play it safe in GP3 if you're scared.

The problem with that approach is that the limit is when a human blacks out and leads to them losing control of the car. That by definition is unacceptable, so you do have to place a limit somewhere.

With skirts and tunnels and proper ground effect cars that have movable aero and fans and tyres as large as they want then it would easily be possible to build a machine that can corner faster than is pilotable by a human. But I'm happy to drop this point as there are bigger problems to overcome. I am curious as to just how far it could be taken but disagree that it would make for good racing. Good speed trials most probably, but not good racing.

With all these latest technologies what jobs do you want the driver themselves to have to do? A lot of the banned technologies, such as ABS and traction control, are tools that help the driver do a better job or do the driver's job for them. How much involvement do you want the driver to actually have and how would you enforce that?

Computers can't replicate instinct and feel, which is what is so wonderful when a driver comes along and tames a beast. Perhaps the ultimate evolution has no driver? F1 should push the boundaries and find out. Again, there's always a place for drivers in NASCAR.

Computers don't need to replicate instinct and feel when they have unlimited sensors and perception. There have been several articles written about how F1 simulators are having to adapt to try and understand feel and driver confidence, as they were starting to churn out upgrades to cars that made them faster with a computer driving them but did not give the driver confidence to push to the car to the limit causing the car to be slower in the real world. With F1 sized budgets it would only be a matter of a couple of years at most before they could replace the driver with software that could drive the car more quickly.

You point out that it's wonderful when a driver comes along and tames a beast, but advocate adaptive suspension, abs, traction control, launch control, etc. that all come along and tame the beast for the driver.

If this is a racing series, how are you going to qualify the cars so that you have some racing? With all the technologies previously discussed the cars are going to be consistent and easy to drive, so having them qualify in speed order will lead to races where the field just spreads out a bit. If the cars are perfect then there would not be any racing at all as drivers could not make a mistake, so how will you either enforce imperfection or introduce racing?

I wouldn't 'enforce imperfection'. Watching a car driver off into the distance is fine by me because it's the whole package that has allowed that. Then I enjoy watching the others try and beat them by making something even better. Domination is not boring when in context. IF you want to see drivers make mistake, watch Moto3, those guys are crazy.

In that case just hold time trials, as this isn't a race. Why race for two hours when the result is determined by the end of the first corner (or the day before if you allow launch control).

How are you going to control costs and ensure competition? With unlimited technologies you need as close to an unlimited budget as possible, and that is unsustainable for the vast majority of the grid. Instead you'll end up with one or two teams dominating year after year because they can afford to develop new technologies whilst the rest are perpetually trying to play catch up. How will you ensure intra-season interest when one car wins all the races because they have a technology none of the others has?

I have already given you a suggested solution how to remain viable. I can give you more if you like. Again, dominating racing is not boring to some people. We have our likes too. Leave F1 to be what it is, you all have a plether of 'exciting' racing to watch - go watch it - like DTM.

But dominated racing is not commercially attractive to those who are not winning, and becomes a self reinforcing phenomenon where the best teams get the most sponsorship and remain the best teams due to their budgets. The privateers couldn't compete in an unrestricted series as they wouldn't have the R&D budgets, so we would see the end of teams like Williams. Teams that never won would have their budgets slashed, so they'd drop ever further behind. You'd end up with a one or two make series.

How are you going to maintain commercial interest in this 'sport'? If technology can dominate the series by giving certain cars an edge then how will you attract newcomers to the sport? If only a couple of teams can afford to develop front running cars, why would other manufacturers bother spending vast sums of money just to be also rans? How many different manufacturers do you think an unlimited series could attract?

Again, I have already given you a solution and can give you more. People have money. Companies have money. Just because Williams doesn't don't mean we have to restrict everyone else. If budget is a problem, try karting.

As others have pointed out, if it's all about the cars and the technology then why have a driver's championship?

Until they decide that a driver is just wasted ballast, then a drivers championship is required. It's a team sport, but it's not solely about the driver. What about the HUNDREDS of people behind the scenes. If you want just a drivers championship, try Xbox.

It is about the driver though - they are some of the biggest brand names in F1 and sell just as much as the teams themselves. I want a combination of both, but that means the driver has to be able to make a difference. The more driver aids you have the less that becomes true. If you want just a manufacturers series then please try and hijack another sport, that isn't what F1 is about.

I also find it amusing that the 'purists' have hijacked the word 'purist' and branded all dissenters as favouring 'spectacle'. Why is a driver dominated series a spectacle and impure compared to a car dominated series? Each is pure and each is just a spectacle when viewed from differing points of view. One favours the purity of the drivers battling it out in broadly equal machinery, able to make a difference, and the other favours the purity of the technology where engineers are unrestrained in what they can do but would inevitably lead to a series where the driver has little impact beyond just being good enough and fit enough.

Again, you're missing the point of the 'Purist'. We want F1 to remain the pinnacle. We don't want 'close racing' for the sake of it. We want the the winner to earn it, not fluke it. We want to see measurable results, not best guess and fingers crossed. We want to see flat out racing of the best cars and the best drivers - not 'softly softly' as they eek their way around the track trying not to drive too fast.

I don't want close racing for the sake of it, nor do I think we have that this year. Ferrari and Red Bull both prove that in the race it is possible to put in consistently strong performances, and McLaren have been consistently strong in qualifying. They've had field leading race pace in almost every race so far. That isn't fluke or luck, it has been earned by building the best cars on the grid.

And F1 has never ever been about driving flat out for the entire racing distance. Can you name the last race where that were the case for even the majority of the field? There's always been a balance between conserving tyres, engine life, gearbox life, fuel, etc. Occasionally a lone driver out of position will throw caution to the wind and drive an aggressive race, but it's always been a rarity.

Personally I half agree with you that I'd like to see the drivers be able to push/lean on the tyres more. I'd be happy if Pirelli could find a way to keep the wear but limit the degradation so that the drivers get a similar length of stint and that multiple strategies are viable, but that they can be more aggressive with their driving. But the challenges the drivers currently face are not anything new or detrimental to the sport, and make for better racing than the 'last forever and ever' Bridgestones.

[SeijaKessen]

Actually though, sports car racing is more relevant for automotive manufacturers now. It's a better way to test concepts to see whether or not they can operate within normal driving conditions.

The tech needs to find a place in real world uses or it's hard to justify the cost. This is why they're all probably whinging about the cost - there's no market to recoup the investment. Far enough too.

Finding ways to increase fuel efficiency, power, grip, longevity etc can all filter to the domestic and commercial markets. F-ducts could be integrated into trucks for long haul aero assistance to increase fuel efficiency etc. Reactive Suspension can go straight into my new VW. This gives teams the chance to earn some cash for the innovations and retain viability. It's not really rocket science is it.

Open wheel racing has a place but you need to differentiate yourself. If F1 is so concerned about being here it 5-10 years time, forget tyre lotteries to draw a crowd, bring back the tech, open up the regs and bring in the manufactures. Problem solved - purist happy - spectacle to sell tickets - no lottery. Best combo wins.

Hey, Dietrich Mateschitz - you can make this happen! Imagine it - every new Renault comes with a case of Red Bull!

I think you need to ask yourself some fundamental questions if you have any hope of turning this into a practical proposition.

1) Take a circuit, say Spa. What do you think the target lap time should be? Because in a completely unrestricted series with all these technologies you talk about you couldn't have a human driver because the car would be too fast. The human body has upper limits in terms of the G-force that can be sustained and reaction times.

2) With all these latest technologies what jobs do you want the driver themselves to have to do? A lot of the banned technologies, such as ABS and traction control, are tools that help the driver do a better job or do the driver's job for them. How much involvement do you want the driver to actually have and how would you enforce that?

3) If this is a racing series, how are you going to qualify the cars so that you have some racing? With all the technologies previously discussed the cars are going to be consistent and easy to drive, so having them qualify in speed order will lead to races where the field just spreads out a bit. If the cars are perfect then there would not be any racing at all as drivers could not make a mistake, so how will you either enforce imperfection or introduce racing?

4) How are you going to control costs and ensure competition? With unlimited technologies you need as close to an unlimited budget as possible, and that is unsustainable for the vast majority of the grid. Instead you'll end up with one or two teams dominating year after year because they can afford to develop new technologies whilst the rest are perpetually trying to play catch up. How will you ensure intra-season interest when one car wins all the races because they have a technology none of the others has?

5) How are you going to maintain commercial interest in this 'sport'? If technology can dominate the series by giving certain cars an edge then how will you attract newcomers to the sport? If only a couple of teams can afford to develop front running cars, why would other manufacturers bother spending vast sums of money just to be also rans? How many different manufacturers do you think an unlimited series could attract?

6) As others have pointed out, if it's all about the cars and the technology then why have a driver's championship?

I also find it amusing that the 'purists' have hijacked the word 'purist' and branded all dissenters as favouring 'spectacle'. Why is a driver dominated series a spectacle and impure compared to a car dominated series? Each is pure and each is just a spectacle when viewed from differing points of view. One favours the purity of the drivers battling it out in broadly equal machinery, able to make a difference, and the other favours the purity of the technology where engineers are unrestrained in what they can do but would inevitably lead to a series where the driver has little impact beyond just being good enough and fit enough.

Wow.

I've been snickering uncontrollably for several minutes after reading this.

[Cam]

Firstly thank you Cam for taking the time to reply instead of hiding behind half answers like some.

Good debate will lead to good answers. Both sides have valid points. As long as we're constructive, this is exactly what the sport needs. I actually wish more people would offer opinions.

As for the capabilities of humans to race these cars where restrictions are more open, I look for parallels with aviation and the space industry. A driver will always be required or people will not relate - no matter how much tech is involved. Look at aviation - a plane can take off, fly and land by itself, yet no-one would get on if the pilot wasn't there. I do think drivers will put their hand up to drive cars at any speed. That's why they love it, the challenge.

Safety is important, but it seems it's not that important, let me explain. Take the current tyres, they're designed to fail. One could argue this goes against safety, and it does to an extent. A driver is more likely to have an accident on worn tyres than good rubber, so the sport is sacrificing safety and increasing risk of an accident, for the show. So there's no difference in that aspect compared to faster cars. In fact, with technology and innovation, we could all be driving cars capable of 400km/h, safely. All the while no-one develops this, we'll never know.

People will always back a team, even when they come last. I personally know people who have backed sports teams for decades that have never won any silver wear. Ask them to change teams and you get a gob full. The under-dog mentality runs deep in society and sponsors know this, they will still back a mid to back team. With open regs, the possibility of HRT doing a BRAWN GP is much more possible than it is today and that's a reality. Sponsors would like that. And so would I.

The solutions to keeping F1 viable are there. All the while you have one or two controlling the purse and dipping in to it for their own sake, F1 will never, never, ever, achieve it's full potential.

F1 needs an 'Arab Spring'. The old ways, for the purists, fans and the teams, are not working. No-ones happy. If F1 really wants to survive, it can, and they all know what's required. It just takes someone with courage to stand up and make it happen.

Bring back the manufacturers, get rid of the FIA and the Bobbesy twins, put in some more open regs and let's see some different approaches to racing.

[bhall]

....

[Fat_T0ny]

Oh, Rotund_Anthony.

It's good that there are some who enjoy today's brand of F1. Otherwise, all these cars with standard dimension wings; standard track widths; engines of standard configuration, displacement, vee angle, bore, stroke, air intake, center of gravity, valve layout, metallurgy; standard transmissions; standard wheels and tires; standard weight distribution; standard KERS; standard electronics; standard cooling configurations; standard brakes...well, they'd all just go to waste.

Where, oh where, would we be in the real world? I'm sold.

Let us never return to an era that allowed hacks like Senna, Prost, Fangio, Moss, Clark, Lauda, Stewart, Brabham, Hakkinen, Schumacher, et al, to capture the imaginations of F1 fans around the world as they unfairly piloted unequal machinery on tracks paved with the tears of the masses to vainglorious heights.

Instead, let's embrace the current formula. Let's drink liberally from the Cup of Truth which tells us, "Yes, my people. Young Maldonado eats at the same table as five World Champion race winners this year - sorry, Michael, not enough room." Let's dance with Strategy or Fortune - whichever happens to show up that weekend. And let's build Pirelli marble castles so that our imaginations may truly run free.

Most of all, let's not forget the kids. We must guide them faithfully toward dreams that are real. No more, "I want to be a police officer," or, "I want to be an astronaut." No. Let us gently guide them to reality until the call "I want to win the lottery!" triumphantly reverberates from sea to shining sea.

- Restricted doesn't mean the same.

- F1 needs to make money, or there is no F1. That's the real world.

- If any of the drivers won when their car was a couple seconds quicker than the rest, it means the car won the championship.

- Plenty of drivers have won races and are not world champions.

- Realistic dreams you mention. Unrestricted F1 is not a viable option in the real world.

But you talk real fancy so you must be right.

[myurr]

One favours the purity of the drivers battling it out in broadly equal machinery, able to make a difference, and the other favours the purity of the technology where engineers are unrestrained in what they can do but would inevitably lead to a series where the driver has little impact beyond just being good enough and fit enough.

I don't know how someone can say that on an F1 forum and still expect to be taken seriously. That's the opening line to the NASCAR manifesto. If that's what F1 is supposed to be, how on Earth did people follow this sport from its origins until last year? Masochism? Depravity? I would have lost my mind following F1 if I wanted NASCAR instead.

It's no wonder that some have desperately wanted F1 to change: F1 is simply not what they have in mind at all.

And yet people remember and talk about the names of the great drivers of the past battling to control almost untameable machinery. When people talk about Prost do they celebrate the driver or the team he subsequently formed? How about Senna, Mansell, Villeneuve, Hill, Schumacher, Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart, Lauda, etc.

Some won in the best cars, others are celebrated for overcoming the flaws in their cars and winning anyway. F1 has always been a drivers championship first and foremost, and whilst the teams may covet the constructors championship it is the driver's championship that dominates the column inches and therefore marketing exposure that drives the sponsors.

The cars have always been the pinacle in terms of speed and technology. They still are and will be for the foreseeable future. But take away the driver or diminish to irrelevance the battles between them and F1 is no more.

[myurr]

As for the capabilities of humans to race these cars where restrictions are more open, I look for parallels with aviation and the space industry. A driver will always be required or people will not relate - no matter how much tech is involved. Look at aviation - a plane can take off, fly and land by itself, yet no-one would get on if the pilot wasn't there. I do think drivers will put their hand up to drive cars at any speed. That's why they love it, the challenge.

Like I say I am curious as to how far humans can be pushed, but I would still prefer to see skills other than ability to tolerate G-force win the world championship.

Safety is important, but it seems it's not that important, let me explain. Take the current tyres, they're designed to fail. One could argue this goes against safety, and it does to an extent. A driver is more likely to have an accident on worn tyres than good rubber, so the sport is sacrificing safety and increasing risk of an accident, for the show. So there's no difference in that aspect compared to faster cars. In fact, with technology and innovation, we could all be driving cars capable of 400km/h, safely. All the while no-one develops this, we'll never know.

The degradation of the tyres is not really unsafe though. Are driver's more likely to make a mistake? It would be interesting to see if statistics back your assertion up?

But a driver trying to push on tyres that are slowly quitting on him is different from a driver trying to push to the edge of blacking out so that their vision starts to fade but then comes back as they exit the corner. Get it wrong and they're unconscious and no longer have any control over their car. I don't remember seeing a driver lose control and plough into a wall at full racing speed because their tyres were shot and they pushed too hard.

The drivers also have limits as to what they'll tolerate. Take a look at Monaco - for the last two years the drivers actively campaigned for DRS to be banned through the tunnel so that they would feel the need to take a risk there. They could have left it down to their own discretion, but felt that it was unsafe to do so. How many would be willing to push themselves to the edge of blacking out?

People will always back a team, even when they come last. I personally know people who have backed sports teams for decades that have never won any silver wear. Ask them to change teams and you get a gob full. The under-dog mentality runs deep in society and sponsors know this, they will still back a mid to back team. With open regs, the possibility of HRT doing a BRAWN GP is much more possible than it is today and that's a reality. Sponsors would like that. And so would I.

Interesting that you bring up Brawn. How many sponsors did they manage to attract even in their championship winning year?

With open regs there is far less possibility for teams to do a Brawn. Brawn won because they found a loophole in the regs and exploited it better than the other teams. The car was also developed with a larger budget and timeframe than any other car on the grid, as it was fully funded by Honda throughout that period. They only had limited funds during the season not before it.

With open regs after the first year or two it would come down to who has the biggest budgets. Those spending more on R&D would ultimately have more avenues for innovation, the largest teams and best designers in the business, and would be able to take more risks on potentially dead end ideas where every now and then they get a huge payoff.

Teams like HRT would not be viable, they would end up tens of seconds off the pace with no hope for a miracle technology that would eliminate all their other deficiencies. You would rapidly get to a point where no one other than the top team or two could ever win simply as they had the technological lead in so many areas that you would need to spend billions to catch up to their levels of refinement, and would then still need millions more to drive new R&D projects to get an edge. That level of expenditure is not going to be sustainable any time in the foreseeable future for any company, let alone a car manufacturer.

The solutions to keeping F1 viable are there. All the while you have one or two controlling the purse and dipping in to it for their own sake, F1 will never, never, ever, achieve it's full potential.

F1 needs an 'Arab Spring'. The old ways, for the purists, fans and the teams, are not working. No-ones happy. If F1 really wants to survive, it can, and they all know what's required. It just takes someone with courage to stand up and make it happen.

Bring back the manufacturers, get rid of the FIA and the Bobbesy twins, put in some more open regs and let's see some different approaches to racing.

The manufacturers left because they weren't winning and therefore their marketing departments didn't see the benefits of competing. Open regulations are not going to change that, one approach would ultimately be the best and all the others would get trapped copying it whilst the originator was always one step ahead. The best you could hope for would be for a small team to be that one pioneer of the best approach to building a car and that it took the Ferrari's, Red Bull's and McLaren's of this world a season to catch up. The following year the status quo would resume and the smaller teams would never get a look in ever again, leaving them to fall further off the pace each year.

[bhall]

- Restricted doesn't mean the same.

- F1 needs to make money, or there is no F1. That's the real world.

- If any of the drivers won when their car was a couple seconds quicker than the rest, it means the car won the championship.

- Plenty of drivers have won races and are not world champions.

- Realistic dreams you mention. Unrestricted F1 is not a viable option in the real world.

But you talk real fancy so you must be right.

To address your most salient point, I'll just say thank you.

And yet people remember and talk about the names of the great drivers of the past battling to control almost untameable machinery. When people talk about Prost do they celebrate the driver or the team he subsequently formed? How about Senna, Mansell, Villeneuve, Hill, Schumacher, Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart, Lauda, etc.

I know, right? It's a damn good thing they all drove "broadly equal" cars. Oh, wait...

By the way, do you ever watch Le Mans? Those cars sit alone at the pinnacle of technology in motorsport.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

An Audi R10 wishes it had half the tech of an RB8

[bhall]

Perhaps. But what does the Audi R18 e-tron quattro wish?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

That it could probably be better using F1 know how.

The reverse would not be true.

[bhall]

I won't argue with you on that except to say that I can think of quite a few teams this year who would positively love the added traction of electrically-driven front wheels, not to mention the added efficiency of a direct injection engine.

Oh, how I'd love to see those concepts exploited with F1 know-how.

(The 2014 engines are going to feature direct injection, right?)

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I believe they are direct injection units. Will have to check up on that.

Electric driven front wheels opens up possibilities sure. But would F1 be ready for all wheel drive?
And what of the investment required? Would require a mountain of cash to implement.

[bhall]

I hold no illusions that the development of any technology on any scale is cheap. But, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be wholly avoided.

There's a middle ground somewhere between all-out spending wars and the castration of innovation.*



* What are the chances that's the name of a band somewhere?