A Critical Rethink of F1

[Bazza]

Now, before anyone gets too upset, this is just a thought experiment - people might learn things, or understand some things better, or at least find out why certain choices have been made. We do have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight here; if something wrong/bad was regulated in the '80s but they didn't know better, just say it was bad or wrong, why, and maybe hypothesize about what may have occurred had that mistake not been made.


Basically, the point of this thread is to ask "why" or "what for", etc, about choices made through F1's history up to the current day, with an eye on the end result; F1 as we know it. Assumptions and preconceptions should be kept to a minimum - no "it's because it's F1" or other pitiful excuses for what's actually bad decision making.

Things like this:

There is a reason why F1 is still considered the pinnacle of motorsport. Although the regulations are getting tighter this is still an open development series. There is a ton of spec series out there and if level playing field is what the people want then how come not any one of those are more popular than F1??

and

(on the subject of Bathurst) pure fantasy. it could never be brought up to the standard required for an f1 race.

and

F1 needs to have a lot of people physically attending the race for the event to be considered a success

are what I'm talking about. No offense to the people I quoted (and the last one I made up myself just then), but you should be able to see what I'm talking about here.

I'll get started then - Why does a race need people to attend it to be successful? This was brought up in the Bathurst F1 race thread, about it's location and availability of hotels and public transport. There have been several discussions of a similar topic about the V8 Supercars regarding crowd attendances - all of them making the point that "the TV coverage is so good nowdays that there's less reason to actually go to the race anymore". A fair point to be sure; modern premier level motorsport coverage is pretty top notch. Going back to the V8 Supercar example, they've basically made each race weekend into an event, with varying degrees of off-track entertainment each time (ranging from parties at Adelaide to the par-tay at the Gold Coast (sorry)). Even without that, especially at the overseas races (when they had/have China, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Texas, etc), you're only going to get some interested locals and the most hardcore of the core audience, so there must be a significant gain from the TV side, perhaps enough to swing the balance in favor of limited physical attendance?


The second question is - why are all races the same length? Again with the V8 Races, the season starts with 2 x 250km races over a weekend, then there's shorter but more frequent races (some as low as 60km I think), longer endurance races (300km, 500km, 1000km), and everything in between (e.g. 100km Saturday, 200km Sunday). There's also standing starts and rolling starts throughout the season. Instead, F1 is always 300km, standing starts. Was this always the case, or did someone decide that we shouldn't have longer races at Monza and Spa anymore? Understandably, it could be seen as testing to find one or more ideal race formulas, but does anyone legitimately think that F1 is above/beyond that and has perfected the race formula? Surely not.


Thirdly, and it's kinda hard to avoid the tracks for so long, but what is with the calendar's track choice in F1? Who is responsible for it, and what is their reasoning? Going back to one of the quotes above; about Bathurst not being up to the standards of F1 tracks - it's pretty obvious that the standards of being a F1 track are pretty low considering (lets be honest here) most of them suck. Uncoordinated marshalls, poor track layout/design, Tilke talking about safety and no gravel run-offs, and inevitable doom (how many tilke tracks will have fallen off the calendar by 2025?) seem to be a common theme. Obviously it's not all safety and maximum width tracks because Monaco, Monza, Interlagos, Suzuka and Spa are still there, fairly unscathed. Melbourne is probably the weakest track Australia has to offer (and having been to Queensland raceway, that's saying something), yet it opens the F1 season. And whoever thought Valencia being a F1 track (repeatedly!) clearly wasn't thinking about the good of the sport.


Inevitably, there's also the question about car development. I bet you were expecting the obvious here (closed cockpit and wheels in the 'pinnacle' of motorsport), but guess again. Why were solid suspension wishbones banned? Seems like such a clever, simple solution to avoid paying too much of an aerodynamic price for a mechanical component, and were it regulated with common sense (bound by a volume created by the mounting points for the member).

[Lycoming]

I'll get started then - Why does a race need people to attend it to be successful?

So that the racetrack and race organizers don't go bankrupt. They don't get a penny from TV revenue as far as I know, and in fact, have to pay tens of millions of dollars to host a race. They can't keep hemorrhaging money indefinitely, they need both grandstand ticket sales as well as a title sponsor to break even.

N
The second question is - why are all races the same length?

They're not. Monaco is something like 260 km. Why is it necessary to have different lengths? What does it add to the sport? It's a triviality. Besides, long races are a harder sell. The many fans don't have the attention span for a 1000km race, and it becomes much more complex to televise. The current race distance is just long enough that one can easily sit through the entire thing. It's long enough to allow for some complexity in strategy, to allow for some come-from-behind position changes and some decent battles without stretching the viewer's attention span. Too short... and it's over before anything happens. As for rolling starts... they're just not as chaotic. I prefer standing starts. People will complain that it's removing a crucial element of driving skill, specifically clutch control. Not that rolling starts don't have their own challenges though.

what is with the calendar's track choice in F1? Who is responsible for it, and what is their reasoning?

The FIA World Motorsport Council. Reasoning? judging by who sits on it, probably something to do with $$$.

Uncoordinated marshalls, poor track layout/design, Tilke talking about safety and no gravel run-offs, and inevitable doom (how many tilke tracks will have fallen off the calendar by 2025?) seem to be a common theme.

You misunderstand what the F1 standard entails. Bathurst is inadequate because it does not have runoff at all in a lot of places, and doesn't have proper barriers, which is unsafe for cars travelling at F1 speeds. It also does not have adequate spectator facilities to host an event on the scale of an F1 race; try holding the olympic hockey finals at your local community center, it won't be pretty.

The marshalls are a separate matter and varies from track to track, though I don't think you should criticize their coordination if you've never worked as one before. Bear in mind, they are volunteers.

Poor track layout is a subjective opinion. I personally have no issue with the layout of Tilke tracks, despite criticisms of sterility from many.

No gravel runoff? tarmac runoff is better for cars like these; they tend to skip over gravel pits, paved runoff will slow you down more in such a situation. They also give you more of an opportunity to regain control.

Falling off the calendar is separate issue of bad business cases and/or poor promotion.

Obviously it's not all safety and maximum width tracks because Monaco, Monza, Interlagos, Suzuka and Spa are still there, fairly unscathed.

Monaco is an exception to everything, don't use it to try and justify any of your arguments. Interlagos, Suzuka and Spa all have good spectator facilities as well as proper barriers and large amounts of runoff. Not to mention, they're classics. Of course they're still there.

Melbourne is probably the weakest track Australia has to offer (and having been to Queensland raceway, that's saying something), yet it opens the F1 season.

Street circuits bring in the crowds because you don't need to drive half an hour into the middle of nowhere to get to it. And it's given us exciting enough races the last few years. It's not the best track on the calendar, but it's not that worst either.

And whoever thought Valencia being a F1 track (repeatedly!) clearly wasn't thinking about the good of the sport.

I actually rather like the track, but the racing is boring.

[Bazza]

You're slightly missing the point I think. This isn't about 'why it would/wouldn't work if done tomorrow', it's about did we do the right thing in the first place; is there some flawed, underlying problem or otherwise (good or bad) that resulted in where we are today.

The TV-only races, etc. The point was that the track is paying the TV station, and that if the TV station is known and constant (as it is in F1 and V8 Supercars and probably a lot of motorsports), then would it be possible to drastically reduce this fee (or even have the commercial rights holders pay) if the track was good or desired enough, but had little in the way of casual viewing (like bathurst in the above examples). Sounds radical, almost maniacal, I know. But again, this is about critical thinking - not just assuming everything done in the past was 100% right and that there might (inevitably) be current decisions and/or methods based on bad choices.

For length, I didn't know Monaco was only 260km, but surely that would be based on the ideal time limit for races, worked backward for distance. The variance in races does bring out a different dynamic between the teams; some are fantastic over short distances and dealing with differing tyre and fuel circumstances, while other teams would excel at the longer events. Some teams are in between. That could be a fascinating new dynamic that would add to the races.


Rolling starts, I suppose, do rely on having a full field (28+) of cars (not the small field we have now). Actually, why do we only have 22 cars? That's a tiny amount, basically anemic by any other standard.


For track standards, remember that the Champ cars raced around the Gold Coast, and they were by no means a slow car, and it was in no way a 'gentle' track. Youtube it; you'll notice a very obvious lack of run-off, and that most spectators won't actually be in the stadium seats...

As for the marshalls, we've all seen what happened in Korea. I don't think any more really has to be said.

Like you said, some tracks classics, it just seems they get to skirt the rules. I'm not saying they don't have run-off or that they've got no barriers, but compared to Bahrain, India, etc, it's pretty obviously apples and oranges. You'll never see a corner like Eau Rouge in a new, safe, shiny Tilke track, and you know it.
The point was always; if you've got rules, and the new tracks aren't as good as the old tracks - due to limitations (apparently), then perhaps the problem is with the rules?


Also I don't understand how you can like the track but think the racing is boring. What's appealing about it?

[Lycoming]

Rolling starts, I suppose, do rely on having a full field (28+) of cars (not the small field we have now). Actually, why do we only have 22 cars? That's a tiny amount, basically anemic by any other standard.

No, anemic is the LMP1 class in ALMS the past 2 years. 2-3 cars in class, pretty much, that's why it folded and merged with grand am. 22 cars is plenty enough to give good racing and there's barely enough money to go around to that many teams anyways.

For track standards, remember that the Champ cars raced around the Gold Coast, and they were by no means a slow car, and it was in no way a 'gentle' track. Youtube it; you'll notice a very obvious lack of run-off, and that most spectators won't actually be in the stadium seats...

Yup, and F1 races used to have so few safety measures in place that drivers had to stop and pull people who had crashed out of their burning wreckages. Just because something can be done and was done in the past doesn't mean it should be done, today or back then. This example doesn't do anything to help your argument.

You'll never see a corner like Eau Rouge in a new, safe, shiny Tilke track, and you know it.

In what sense? The actual layout of the corner, or the relative lack of runoff?

The point was always; if you've got rules, and the new tracks aren't as good as the old tracks - due to limitations (apparently), then perhaps the problem is with the rules?

No, because people just don't like change and always view the past through rose colored glasses; in that sense, no matter what, the old, classic tracks will always be better. If we were to try being objective, I would argue that COTA is as good or better than places like silverstone and suzuka, but nobody would agree with me because "it's a Tilke track" and because it doesn't have the history, but the circuit has elevation changes a-plenty, very technical high and low speed corners, and wide apexes that make for good battles.

By the way, I believe Tilke's company did the track architecture but not the layout of COTA.

Also I don't understand how you can like the track but think the racing is boring. What's appealing about it?

It was really fun to drive in F1 2011.

[gold333]

Bazza I like the way you think. Very rarely are the fundamental aspects of things that are taken for granted questioned like you suggest.

As with any suggestion to think out of the box it is far easier to dismiss your questions than it is to answer them, so you'll get a lot of why nots.