Do you know what would make F1 better?

[Ciro Pabón]

Better? The formula IS the rules. Formula means the set of rules used to know if a car can compete. Let me repeat that to see if it enters your hard heads, kids: THE FORMULA IS THE RULES (AND the regulations, for Conceptual. Splitting hairs again, mate? ).

Actually, it would be interesting to have a race without rules. The closest thing I know is the world famous incredible Gumball or Cannonball Race.

Thinking about it, now we know what Miguel is doing in the US: racing in the Cannonball... so, you thought we wouldn't notice, eh, Mick?

The rules for this "formula" are simple: go from New Jack city (or Darien, Connecticut) to Redondo Beach. That's it.

No rules about the cars, no rules about the body, the engine, the wheels, the sidepods, the pitstops or anything. You don't even have a track, for the love of Pete. Actually you're expected to break the safety rules, the speed limit, the traffic rules, you mention them. I guess you can bite your nails, smoke, use drugs, fart, spit, crash and, in general, behave like a pig... It's like Flavio Briatore driving, I imagine.

As everybody and his dog around here knows, this race was started by the motorcyclist extraordinaire George Cannonball Baker. Here you have how your formula looked in 1933, blueflash (welcome, you guy):

George "Cannonball" Baker in his first race across the States, near the Mexican border


The grid: notice that pitbabes are in the car, of course! They are probably making up with the driver. Notice also that there is no espresso and if there is coffe around this place every drop is horrible... who cares?


Cannonball conceptualists: Brock (standing, right) and Yates (in the car), twin souls of blueflash


The first Cannonball: the world acclaimed Moon Trash II. This car completed the course in a rather disappointing 40 hours 51 minutes, driven by Brock & Yates. What are they doing here? Spitting the espresso and licking an ice cream, evidently...


After thinking for a while, I'm amazed every time we come to the old theme of regulations to see people thinking that F1 is held back by regulations or the bosses, when in fact the only thing that holds it back its the lack of imagination. Same goes for ourselves, btw: it's not the rules what limits us, is our mind. As the old song goes, if you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change.

[donskar]

"Do you know what would make F1 better?"

Yes. Max and Bernie forehead to forehead and a .44 Magnum. Save the environemnt -- use just one round. Just kidding. [-X Mostly.

[Miguel]

Thinking about it, now we know what Miguel is doing in the US: racing in the Cannonball... so, you thought we wouldn't notice, eh, Mick?

Gosh. One post and I'm caught. Impressive. It's a shame bad weather is holding me back, because else you'd all be suffering the rage of the quasi-ñoñostiarra driver. Now I only need to convert engine capacities from cubic inches to Liters and all will make sense...

But back to regulations, I do think they could be better. I especially dislike rules without physical sense, such as those forcing the body to be rigid. Rigid? What is rigid? Is viagra spam in vogue at the FIA? And after that you have another rule stating how much certain parts can deflect. So it wasn't as rigid as you thought, was it Max?

And finally, I'd like to say that I think 2009 rules are going to be an improvement. Even though a 18k rpm limit seems a tad hard to swallow, the 8 engine rule per season seems an improvement, and I have some high hopes in the aero regulations. No, I don't expect MotoGP, but I do expet some damn good close racing. After all, we got top engineers to shape them. Let's see!

[Conceptual]

Better? The formula IS the rules. Formula means the set of rules used to know if a car can compete. Let me repeat that to see if it enters your hard heads, kids: THE FORMULA IS THE RULES (AND the regulations, for Conceptual. Splitting hairs again, mate? ).

No, just being precise as Belatti refered to on page one.

The Rules are the Formula, and should dictate a clear distinction between classes... IE: 1,2,3,4... And they should be ranked by superiority of talent/expertise/technology/visibility.

The Regulations are there to close loopholes (exploits) that are caused by insuffucuent or politically corrupt Rules. If the Rules followed the clear distinctions in an objective manner, there would be no need for regulations.

Now, the sporting regs are different, like gentlemens curtesy of chicane cutting, or not slamming the door on someone and driving them off track. Unfortunately, you have drivers that continue to disrespect the spirit of honorable competition, and then you need MORE regulations dictating how many corners, leaving room for other cars on track, etc...

I wish it was different, but it isnt...

Ya know. I wonder if Red Bull Technologies would furnish the new RB5 chassis/RB4 Wings@RB5 height and run a NASCAR GP series in the US using the detuned 2006 Cosworth F1 engines, RBT gearbox and Bosch AWD KERS.

I'm sure that there would be enough crowds all over North America to justify the series, and with NASCAR's ownership of SPEED TV, the visibility would trump anything that F1 can do in the US.

Still dreamin' that little dream........................

[Ciro Pabón]

Oh, c'mon, Conceptual, arguing per se won't take you anywhere. I would love to know if F1 now has a book for rules and another one for regulations. Links, please.

I leave you for three days and lucidity escapes, like alcohol in the sun...

About F1 in America, the operative word in "Change you can believe" is believe. I was talking about the possibility of a "free for all formula".

NASCAR, now that you mention it, doesn't even publish the rules (or the regulations, laws, system, policies, conventions or whatever name you wish to give them).

The whole idea of organized racing revolves around a formula. If you wish you can blame the "formula". I blame imperfections on people.

Simple: as Rousseau said, "Because we can not change the persons, we do not cease to change the laws". I cannot say it in a clearer way (how many times I've written that in this forum? Like ten or so? )

Now, you tell me that the ones corrupted are the laws, not the people... Really? Don't make me laugh, I had a sad day.

Let me put it in this way. According to your thesis, homicides would cease if the law against homicides changed: poverty, jealousy, envy, greed, anger have nothing to do with it. Yeah, sure.

To blame the acts of the humankind on the objects that surround us is a sure fire way to create unhappiness.

To pretend that Formula One could even exist without the rules that are the creation of three generations of people smarter than us is crazy. The only ones that benefit from this kind of discourse are the people that are trying to bend the rules in their own benefit, like Mr. Mosley, the guy that believes that simple rules like decency, honor and pride are there to be argued in court and that if he is caught with his pants down (literally) is not his fault, but the fault of the newspaper that caught him.

Get this straight: Formula One has a great set of rules (or regulations). They used to be greater, as Miguel says, until everybody and his dog started to think that any fan with two years of experience was able to change them for the better. I've lost the count of the many times that people has started threads about "Whats wrong with F1 and how it could be made better if everybody hears me"...

I guess some of those people would start to propose changes to the Ten Commandments after one year in Heaven (or worse yet, to propose its elimination, like the post that started this thread). Actually, if Max were God, the Ten Commandments would be the subject of a poll among the fans of Heaven. That would elliminate the seventh commandment, I'm sure about it (the seventh is the one about adultery, for the forumers that are a little rusty about them)...

Imagine Moses saying: "shall we have a poll about this?"


Hrumph.

NOTE: Miguel wants to know what rigid means. It means:

1 deficient in or devoid of flexibility

Now, it also means:

2 inflexibly set in opinion

[Miguel]

Ciro,

Trying to reinforce your position with the 10 Commandments and Moses isn't doing you any favour with Conceptual. After all, if you are a christian or believe that Jesus Christ is a prophet, then he did throw all 10 commandments out of the window and substituted them with just one: "Love each other as I have loved you", or something of the like.

[Conceptual]

Ciro,

Trying to reinforce your position with the 10 Commandments and Moses isn't doing you any favour with Conceptual. After all, if you are a christian or believe that Jesus Christ is a prophet, then he did throw all 10 commandments out of the window and substituted them with just one: "Love each other as I have loved you", or something of the like.

Maybe just youtube search George Carlin and the Ten Commandments? I think he reduces it to one or two...

And Ciro, the rules and regulations are in the same body for sure, but I would like to know if the ORIGINAL rules of the formula included regulations. If they do not, then they must have been introduced afterwards.

And about the people/formula being corrupt. What I said was that if the rules were based upon OBJECTIVE CRITERIA to DEFINE THE FORMULAE and rank them into classes, IE: 1,2,3,4,etc... Then Formula One couldn't help but have the pinnacle formula, and the need for technical regulations disappears.

If a team is not financially able, or talent defficient, then they would not compete in Formula 1. F1 would then become reserved for the elite (as it is now), but would NOT be governed by making arbitrary rule changes that are based on subjective beliefs.

Am I REALLY asking too much here? Objective criteria determining the formulae should be a given, not a wished for...

[timbo]

Am I REALLY asking too much here? Objective criteria determining the formulae should be a given, not a wished for...

Oh, maybe I'm bored but I just can't find enough difference between "rule", "regulation" and "objective criteria".
To me it's just playing with words. Well, maybe you can show some examples? Is engine displacement a rule or regulation? Is the rule about throttle being conrolled only by driver a regulation?

[Miguel]

Hello again,

And Ciro, the rules and regulations are in the same body for sure, but I would like to know if the ORIGINAL rules of the formula included regulations. If they do not, then they must have been introduced afterwards.

The original Formula 1 did indeed have rules. Although there was indeed a clear performance separator between the various formulae, Formula 1 was not a free for all formula at all. A quick google search showed me what Wikipedia has to say. I'd bet though that the most interesting part of that link are the references.

Also, I recall Jacky Ickx having a terrific qualifying in a F2 car, which a google search reveals: 3rd at the 1967 german grand prix, behind Denny Hulme and Jim Clark.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, I'm with timbo here.

Conceptual, I humbly think (my sad day is already history) that objectivity is impossible when you laid the rules of the game. We've tried to substitute them by "democracy", including some (unscientific) polls by FIA. Perhaps that's not the solution either, given the many changes in recent years, when changes in the rules have open the door to new attempts to ellude them, something that teams (by logic) try to do.

Anyway, I still disagree with the postulate that started this thread. Actually, what has attracted so much money, racers and engineers is the wisdom (not the perfection) of the regulations. The fact that they're not perfect doesn't mean they're not perfectible and that is better to elliminate them.

What we would get is the "full-american" Gumball: fun, yes, I like it in principle, yes, but that's not racing. Actually, it is the opposite of racing: :the Gumball has been suspended in 2008 after a competitor had a mortal crash with a person not competing. Many regulations are not there to complement the basic rules, but because of the love for human life that a true sportsman has.

I think is also important to recognize that the understanding of the behaviour of a sport car has advanced and the rules (or regulations, I still don't get the difference very well) have advanced too. They will continue to do so, specially this year when many "new" attempts have been made to get a better series.

I agree with Conceptual in the fact that there is no a clearly defined "staircase" of series, but that's a task that probably will never be completed as I wish during my life. Who knows, Max won't be there forever and some kind of "F1 Obama" could be the next president. Let's face it: watching races is popular but racing is not. You all know I blame this "lack of racers" in the lack of that "staircase".

Thanks, Miguel, I'll try to follow history of them, rules. I'm a hard headed atheist, I was just trying to illustrate somehow how ridicule is to make polls to change rules and how dangerous it is, because those polls can be manipulated for the benefit of people.

After all, it's impossible for humans (me included) not to be selfish. Just take a look at the new "rules" for the superlicense: what's the purpose of that change? It seems to me a clear example of what happens when the "justices" lost sight of statutory or common law: anything goes (and normally, it doesn't go in a good direction).

[Belatti]

[/i] I've lost the count of the many times that people has started threads about "Whats wrong with F1 and how it could be made better if everybody hears me"...

Yeah. Thats why many of us just answered "icecream"
Answering icecream means that you still like to see whats going on next race, despite Max and Bernie sucks, wings are hideous and KERS implementation contradict cost cutting. You may wonder why does answering icecream means that? Because next march 29th it doesnt matter if you are in the middle of Cundinamarca, in Donostia or in Santa Maria de los Buenos Aires, you will get some icecream and sit down in front of your TV to see 18 cars (hopefully 20) running arround the park

[Metar]

Replace that ice-cream with salted sunflower seeds, and I'm there.

[Conceptual]

Well, I'm with timbo here.

Conceptual, I humbly think (my sad day is already history) that objectivity is impossible when you laid the rules of the game. We've tried to substitute them by "democracy", including some (unscientific) polls by FIA. Perhaps that's not the solution either, given the many changes in recent years, when changes in the rules have open the door to new attempts to ellude them, something that teams (by logic) try to do.

Anyway, I still disagree with the postulate that started this thread. Actually, what has attracted so much money, racers and engineers is the wisdom (not the perfection) of the regulations. The fact that they're not perfect doesn't mean they're not perfectible and that is better to elliminate them.

What we would get is the "full-american" Gumball: fun, yes, I like it in principle, yes, but that's not racing. Actually, it is the opposite of racing: :the Gumball has been suspended in 2008 after a competitor had a mortal crash with a person not competing. Many regulations are not there to complement the basic rules, but because of the love for human life that a true sportsman has.

I think is also important to recognize that the understanding of the behaviour of a sport car has advanced and the rules (or regulations, I still don't get the difference very well) have advanced too. They will continue to do so, specially this year when many "new" attempts have been made to get a better series.

I agree with Conceptual in the fact that there is no a clearly defined "staircase" of series, but that's a task that probably will never be completed as I wish during my life. Who knows, Max won't be there forever and some kind of "F1 Obama" could be the next president. Let's face it: watching races is popular but racing is not. You all know I blame this "lack of racers" in the lack of that "staircase".

Thanks, Miguel, I'll try to follow history of them, rules. I'm a hard headed atheist, I was just trying to illustrate somehow how ridicule is to make polls to change rules and how dangerous it is, because those polls can be manipulated for the benefit of people.

After all, it's impossible for humans (me included) not to be selfish. Just take a look at the new "rules" for the superlicense: what's the purpose of that change? It seems to me a clear example of what happens when the "justices" lost sight of statutory or common law: anything goes (and normally, it doesn't go in a good direction).

I just guess that our understanding of linguistics, and precise vocabulary hold different standards.

I guess I should just give up on my line of thinking. It is a European series (or middle eastern soon...), and it is controlled by corporations and bottom line figures more than the joy of racing.

I cannot make it any better, because as Ciro has pointed out, biased people such as himself will always interject on behalf of their favorite teams, regardless of what that interjection does to the overall persona of F1.

Like I said before. I used to play one of the best MMORPG's of all time, and when the development team opened up the feedback forum to the fanbase, the monthly updates and rule restructuring benefitted the whining minority, and screwed the hardcore fan.

In that game, they lost about 100,000 monthly subscriptions at $13 each because of their belief that catering to those types would make their game better... All it did was defect those 100K players to different games.

[Belatti]

:-"

[Ciro Pabón]

Ice cream, then.