http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117597 I hope it works because I am fed up of this constant discussion of how to get new fans - Bernie never gives anything a chance to work.
Until they work out that making lots of money now isn't a long term plan the sport is doomed. I'm all for changes but considering the money spent recently on these new engines you can't exactly just start again, the sport is probably only a few years from falling in on itself if we are honest. Too much short term over long term.
WEC gets stronger every year and promotes the web side of their sport and desires to appese the fans. F1 again and again refuses to get with the times and doesn't feel like it wants to stop spitting in the fans faces by ******ed rules like double points and Internet black outs promoting the sport ourselves. Oh **** I said 'F1' FOM and Bernie will probably make not606 delete this post now...
... I thought about deleting it as a joke. but that would be abuse of my power......unlike what Bernie does!!!
Maybe he's worried he doesn't have much time left. I'd oppose anything that reduces the amount of overtaking, so I don't like the sound of wider cars and more downforce. I'd prefer them to look at how they can reward mechanical grip, and reduce the influence of aerodynamic grip. This might reduce R&D costs too, which would help the smaller teams that don't have the same access to wind tunnels. And mechanical grip technologies (tyres, suspension etc) offer more trickle-down benefits to road cars, if this is important to the powers-that-be. 1000hp is fine for a pissing contest against Indy etc, but how much would it help the racing spectacle (drivers battling it out on the track)? I'd rather they make it harder for drivers to use the power they already have, and then start looking for big increases in engine power. This might make 'driver experience' more attractive, and reduce the emerging phenomenon of schoolboy F1 drivers. This would reduce the suspicion that you no longer have to be an elite driver to compete in F1. And surely it would please Bernie - what's the point of having F1 role models who promote KFC and Biactol because they're too young to promote alcohol & investment funds?
Well wider cars would be better for mechanical grip, and from a purely aesthetic point of view they would look much better too.
Ferrari show their idea of what a future F1 car should look like. To save you the bother of looking, it's an Indycar with a double deck front wing. There, saved you a minute or two. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117711
Looks like Ferrari want a gradual rule change so they can run LaFerrari as an F1 car . I think F1 need to make wings smaller and loose the diffuser and the flat floor area under the under cut. i.e. they need to reduce aero effects so there is no point spending huge amounts on aero that don't really relate to road cars. The rules do need opening up to innovation though. Maybe allow electric assistance and recovery on front wheels, active suspension etc. The rules are way to prescriptive on every aspect of design. Some run of the mill family road cars now have active suspension so why is it banned in F1? F1 should push the boundaries of technology that is relevant to road cars of tomorrow.
I think I'd more go after ground effect cars, it's less affected by following in a cars wash and it's something I think modern road cars should look at. Having all that bits and bobs protruding under the car can't be doing much for its efficiency. I think an F1 car would look odd without wings but I can't see the harm in reducing their complexity and offsetting it with more ground effects and more mechanical grip. One of the areas I think F1 is stagnating in is development. Millions get spent chasing a slightly different shaped wing mirror. This happens because the FIA have banned 'easy' development. If they opened up the rules to allow several different designs...cough cough WEC... then it's not going to ruin the sport. It'll stop people chasing hugely complex ways of getting 0.05s out of a million pound brake duct fairing.
I'd like to see more mechanical grip (wider tyres, active suspension), and as BLS has said, take the focus away from aero. I don't think they should clamp down on aero more, but rather make other areas more attractive for development. Why not keep the engine freeze on the power unit, but allow unlimited development of the hybrid elements? It wouldn't be cheap for the engine manufacturers, but at least the research would be super relevant for them. Rather than tweak the ICE to get 1000bhp, fill the gap with electric power.
I like the idealism being discussed in the last couple of posts but feel we should temper them against the implications for even the most up to date Grand Prix circuits – after which we'll probably find ourselves dismissing traditionally favoured circuits and embracing the idea of yet more mega-expensive Tilke-dromes. For instance, all circuits would require extended run-offs but most do not not have the required space, and this is especially true of virtually all the public's (and driver's) favourites. The practicalities… Ground effect will always form part of a total aerodynamic system and cannot be separated from it, since the whole idea is concerned with an object moving through a medium. GE only enhances mechanical grip under 'idealised' circumstances where the former does not become lost. GE is reliant upon a minimal change in ride height, as well as an idealised forward movement of the car with front wheels (correctly) leading the way. This requires very smooth surfaces which can be difficult to achieve (especially at circuits like Sao Paulo, Canada, etc.) and doing so will rarely enhance the viewing spectacle. To some extent, it also outlaws the very concept of a sliding car, since aerodynamics must remain as consistent as possible (even if their net effects can be reduced, relative to an added contribution from GE. See below.*). With GE, mechanical grip is (only) increased under the circumstances required to perpetuate it. It can be lost very suddenly (usually unpredictably, and with potentially disastrous consequence) when (rather than if) the necessarily tight parameters concerning ride height for GE to be effective are exceeded. This can occur for all manner of reasons and, so far as I'm aware, cannot be insured against through design. Inconsistencies with any and all of these factors can unhinge GE such that a driver can find himself piloting an airborne projectile at speeds significantly higher than before. And maybe we find ourselves really wanting to thank that Tilke chap for acres of well-sited tarmac run-off (which also seem at odds with the driver challenge?). Hmm… In accord with the above points, the things most spectators find exciting – which include driver error and the dangers associated with potential for contact between cars – would all but be eliminated and the spectacle would be less appealing. With today's technical know-how, – unless run-offs are dramatically extended (impractical, as discussed above) – driver skill will be subsumed by 'who is the craziest?', and those who are will not necessarily be the best drivers but those who gamble their lives most… *Reducing aerodynamic downforce actually makes the problem worse. When (not if) contact with track surface is lost (thus eliminating the benefit previously gained through GE) every racing driver on the planet will be wanting his/her car back on Earth as soon as possible!
please log in to view this image Can't really word it better so... F1 Fanatic @f1fanatic_co_uk 2m2 minutes ago #F1 has its smallest grid at the start of a year since 1967 but don't worry, here comes the @FIA to ban drivers changing helmets...
I can sort of understand the logic behind banning the helmet changes in a way - it's the same reason the FIA brought in the "drivers can choose their own numbers", they want to try and avoid confusion from the less dedicated fans when drivers change helmets (and in some cases it got ridiculous, I seem to remember Vettel had a new helmet every race one year) and to by extension make it easier for fans to rally behind their favourite drivers. Are there bigger priorities? Yeah, obviously, and I don't think it's a great rule, but it's not a particularly big issue either. In other news, the "revolutionary" changes will not be happening before 2017 after proposals to bring them forward to 2016 were rejected.
Banning helmet changes? Has their ever been a more pointless rule change? Which plank came up with that one?
Does that mean we get to ban Bernie for similar crimes. If I were a driver, I'd be getting a color changing paint job on my lid.
