What do you think should be done

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.
kilcoo316
kilcoo316
21
Joined: 09 Mar 2005, 16:45
Location: Kilcoo, Ireland

Post

sharkie17 wrote:
dumrick wrote: Big constructors' interest relies solely in marketing and image advantages, so they come and go and assure no stability to the series.
do you think that Ferrari is worried either about image or marketing advantage? or did you mean big constructor like toyota nad renault?
ferrari are not a big constructor of cars, they rely on the image from F1 to sell their sporting based product, the others don't. Ferrari and F1 are dependant on each other

dumrick
dumrick
0
Joined: 19 Jan 2004, 13:36
Location: Portugal

Post

kilcoo316 wrote:
sharkie17 wrote:
dumrick wrote: Big constructors' interest relies solely in marketing and image advantages, so they come and go and assure no stability to the series.
do you think that Ferrari is worried either about image or marketing advantage? or did you mean big constructor like toyota nad renault?
ferrari are not a big constructor of cars, they rely on the image from F1 to sell their sporting based product, the others don't. Ferrari and F1 are dependant on each other
Yes, of course that's what I meant. I thought twice even of putting Ferrari in the same range as Williams, McLaren or Brabham, but they make too much money selling production cars to say that they exist for motor racing. For constructors I meant mass production car makers, the ones that must think how much more Clio or C-Class will they sell by winning in F1 and that have to weight the security of thousands of working places vs. gigantic investment in F1.

Wildcard
Wildcard
0
Joined: 15 Jan 2004, 12:44
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Post

Sas...

1. Less aero, more mechanical grip
2. Control tyre (slicks)
3. Testing to occur over the GP week (Thursday, Friday, Saturday) - go
for your lives, test as much as you want, run 4 cars per team, whatever.-
Other testing to be restricted during the year.
4. Bring back 12- lap qualifying and give points for pole
5. Reward points during the race - fastest lap, most laps led, fastest time in
sector, etc.

I think driver aids are here to stay and in any case, I see this as the main benefit of F1 - developing technology that eventually shows up in the cars we drive.
"Attack Life" - Greg Norman

Guest
Guest
0

Post

A little bit of James Allen's article on itv.com/f1 ..

"Many drivers were complaining after the race about how hard it was to overtake.

The new front wings were supposed to improve this, but Jenson Button was amazed how difficult the car was to drive once you get within a second of the car in front."

I don't know where Allen got this information from but if its true, every single person in charge of F1 rules should be shot. The only solution to difficult driving behind other cars is SLICKS. I going crazy repeating myself over and over again but it seems soooo obvious that aero downforce is killing F1. Look at every other racing catergory, be it cars or bikes they all have SLICKS, SLICKS, SLICKS, SLICKS, SLICKS.
Wildcard wrote:Sas...

1. Less aero, more mechanical grip
2. Control tyre (slicks)
3. Testing to occur over the GP week (Thursday, Friday, Saturday) - go
for your lives, test as much as you want, run 4 cars per team, whatever.-
Other testing to be restricted during the year.
4. Bring back 12- lap qualifying and give points for pole
5. Reward points during the race - fastest lap, most laps led, fastest time in
sector, etc.

I think driver aids are here to stay and in any case, I see this as the main benefit of F1 - developing technology that eventually shows up in the cars we drive.
Agreed except point 4 & 5. I reckon quali should be like MotoGP, unlimited laps for an hour. Points for the top 12 or 15 drivers would give more incentive for them to keep racing hard no matter what position they are in.

But driver aids should be banned. F1 should be the pinnacle of driving skill not how good some geek makes the traction control.

On point 3, spot on. See what Flavio Briatore said: http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=32266

Specifically:
"At the moment we test outside of the races, spend a lot of money going round empty circuits and entertain nobody.

"We need to generate audiences and revenues from our testing."

Mclaren11
Mclaren11
0
Joined: 13 May 2003, 22:54
Location: Columbus, Indiana, USA

Post

I would like to see the old qualifying back. The points need to reward winning more than they currentally do as well as giving a point or two to to the pole winner. i think the thursday-friday testing thing is a good idea, but my biggest concern is RULES STABILITY. If F1 decides to rewrite every single rule, every single offseason, the teams won't be able to reach their full potential as far as engineering goes.

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

x
Last edited by DaveKillens on 02 Sep 2009, 05:54, edited 1 time in total.

KJM3
KJM3
0
Joined: 14 Jun 2004, 22:19

Post

I've bit my tongue long enough and now I must say what I feel would make F1 more "interesting":

1. Engine
They should use 3L V-10's with Twin Turbochargers to try and get horsepower up to the 2000hp Level. This should speed the cars up, and allow more downforce to be used without compromising top speed as much.

2. Aero
With cars approaching 2000hp, they will need to loosen the restrictions on Aero and use Ground Effects to their absolute maximum. They should be able to run higher attack angles with the wings since the 2000hp engines will be able to push the cars through the air more effectively.

3. Tires
Bring back slick tires and make them wider for better grip

4. Tracks
Introduce Loop-the-Loops and upside-down sections to the tracks. Since Aero is the only thing keeping the cars from falling out of the sky, the cars will have to be "strong" enough to survive a fall from the top of the loop to minimize the amount of driver fatalities.

5. Weight
Allow cars to be as light as possible, but increase the crash standards by a huge amount to help protect the drivers from a 500 km/h shunt.

6. Safety
Use the jelly protection system from "Judge Dredd" to protect drivers from collisions at "Ludicrous Speed".
Also, the drivers will have to use Driving Suits akin to the ones used by fighter pilots to prevent them from blacking out due to the excessive G-Forces generated by these new cars.

After implementing all this, F1 will be a spectacle like no other. :D

- KJ

User avatar
sharkie17
0
Joined: 16 Apr 2004, 03:38
Location: Texas

Post

kilcoo316 wrote:
sharkie17 wrote:
dumrick wrote: Big constructors' interest relies solely in marketing and image advantages, so they come and go and assure no stability to the series.
do you think that Ferrari is worried either about image or marketing advantage? or did you mean big constructor like toyota nad renault?
ferrari are not a big constructor of cars, they rely on the image from F1 to sell their sporting based product, the others don't. Ferrari and F1 are dependant on each other

lol.. Ferrari dont depend on F1 to sell their cars, Ferrari depend on Ferrari to sell their cars. Thats like saying Ferrari can keep winning races and produce CRAP cars and people would still buy it... which wont happen. I have not heard of ONE single person who saw an F1 race and decided to buy a Ferrari because they won... Ferrari is in it for winning... unlike some past teams who was in it for the "image".

kilcoo316
kilcoo316
21
Joined: 09 Mar 2005, 16:45
Location: Kilcoo, Ireland

Post

lol.. Ferrari dont depend on F1 to sell their cars, Ferrari depend on Ferrari to sell their cars. Thats like saying Ferrari can keep winning races and produce CRAP cars and people would still buy it... which wont happen. I have not heard of ONE single person who saw an F1 race and decided to buy a Ferrari because they won... Ferrari is in it for winning... unlike some past teams who was in it for the "image".
ferrari depend on F1 for their image... which is then used to sell cars - not direct, but still equally influential

West
West
0
Joined: 07 Jan 2004, 00:42
Location: San Diego, CA

Post

I thought Ferrari was in F1 because it's their business... they use the road car division for additional funding... it's just that Ferrari's are already nice cars that people want, so it's easier for them to sell.
Bring back wider rear wings, V10s, and tobacco advertisements

User avatar
sharkie17
0
Joined: 16 Apr 2004, 03:38
Location: Texas

Post

kilcoo316 wrote:
lol.. Ferrari dont depend on F1 to sell their cars, Ferrari depend on Ferrari to sell their cars. Thats like saying Ferrari can keep winning races and produce CRAP cars and people would still buy it... which wont happen. I have not heard of ONE single person who saw an F1 race and decided to buy a Ferrari because they won... Ferrari is in it for winning... unlike some past teams who was in it for the "image".
ferrari depend on F1 for their image... which is then used to sell cars - not direct, but still equally influential
Most Ferrari buyers could care less what Ferrari F1 program is doing. Like West said, people buy Ferraris because they want them, not because they think they are buying a F1 winning cars.

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

x
Last edited by DaveKillens on 02 Sep 2009, 05:55, edited 1 time in total.

Reca
Reca
93
Joined: 21 Dec 2003, 18:22
Location: Monza, Italy

Post

sasquatch wrote: If a Minardi hit a faster car, that would be interesting.

Minardi could make some money by have both cars driving side by side. Then Paul Stodard could do some revenue rasing from other teams to let them past.
I believe there are lot of differences between the way you look at motorsport and the way I look at motorsport and this makes me also believe that we could never reach an agreement on many things.
Lafora wrote: slicks, no aero, no carbon brakes.
Slicks would change nothing (except for the fact that the cars would look better), steel brakes even less (modern pad materials for steel discs have braking capability even higher than c/c brakes, carbon disc are used only because they’re lighter) and about the “no aero” I already expressed my opinion in the thread about the elimination of wings.
Lafora wrote: increase downforce back to early 90s level w/ slicks.
Actually current cars, in spite of the limitations, do generate more downforce than the cars of early 90s.
Moreover, a few months ago I’ve heard, , from an engineer who worked in F1 in those years and still has contacts in that world, that the aero disturbance while following another car was present also in 90s and according to some studies nowadays isn’t certainly worse than it was at the time.

Anyway for everybody suggesting ways to “improve the spectacle”, my advice is the same advice some people gave in the “I hate Nascar” thread :
F1 isn’t the only motorsport event in the world, there are plenty of motorsport series already incorporating what you want to see in F1, watch these (or also these) and stop complaining asking F1 to become F.Ford on steroids, these complains led to the senseless rules changes of the recent years.
If you don’t like rugby because players use the hands, don’t ask to change rugby rules, watch football.

In fact, in spite of what people with rose tinted glass love to say about the past, overtakes were never the characteristic of F1 and nowadays things aren’t lot worse than in the past were.
Obviously, when people show you some footage of the years gone they show you the best action, but you have to remember that Villeneuve vs Arnoux in Dijon ’79 was a rarity, the norm was a lot different. There’s a reason if people remember always the same moments from the past.

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

x
Last edited by DaveKillens on 02 Sep 2009, 05:56, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bcsolutions
0
Joined: 22 Mar 2005, 23:04
Location: Lincoln, UK

Post

There seems to be a conflict between those who see F1 as a showcase for technical brilliance and those who believe that F1 should be a stage for the greatest racing drivers in the world to strut their stuff. F1 by definition is the pinnacle of motor racing, but which of the two arguments best defines proper motor racing?