I just can't watch F1 anymore
03-29-2012, 02:16 PM
#21
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Revving a car to 17k rpm for almost every part of the track is definitely an engineering win. They still do blow up as observed from the last race with Maldanado. I know with MotoGP, the engineers are able to program the bikes on the fly to over-rev for a couple of laps but even then it could get sketchy. F1 is about consistency, aero superiority, and tire management. It does get boring when the same German wins over and over again but I think this season, it won't be a runaway championship since the teams are much closer together than in the past. We'll just have to let the season develop and see how the teams adapt to the R&D race.
04-08-2012, 11:20 AM
#22
Speaking of the old days....
You know what was exciting? No speed limits in the pits!
Now that was exciting. Seeing the cars go down pit lane, and remember, in F1 there is no "pit wall", at 120mph was awesome.
You know what was exciting? No speed limits in the pits!
Now that was exciting. Seeing the cars go down pit lane, and remember, in F1 there is no "pit wall", at 120mph was awesome.
04-12-2012, 01:40 PM
#24
I've been watching Formula 1 since the late 70s and it has always been like this regardless of the regs or rules. There have literally been hundreds of small teams that have come and gone while an elite few - predominantly McLaren and Ferrari clean up. For the last 30-40 years Formula 1 has always been about a couple of teams kicking ass while everyone else fought for the crumbs. That's why you've seen so many rule changes and different engine formulas over the years - to make the show better. But of course it doesn't get better because the boffins always find a way to level the playing field. It wasn't better racing because engines blew up or had 1200hp, or there were multiple tire suppliers. It was still mainly Ferrari and McLaren on the podium, with the occasional look in from Williams and Renault - and once upon a time teams called Tyrell and Brabham. I think you really have to go back to the sixties when a private team could buy a Ferrari, Lotus, or a BRM and go racing. Of course in those days the cars killed as many drivers as they made heroes.
What about Piquet and Mansell, Senna and Prost, Vileneuve and Arnoux people say. When Senna was demolishing the record books it was downright boring. No different than Vettel today. And before the recent movie Senna always came across as a total douchebag. People complained that Prost made it look too easy! Mansell was hard to like - and I'm English. And Piquet? Well the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...
Really, IMHO one of the most interesting drivers was Patrick Tambay who always had something pithy and interesting to say to the cameras - not unlike Vettel - instead of sounding like a corporate drone, but Tambay never won bushels of races or a world championship so he's a side note in F1 history. Sir Jackie Stewart was a great quote and a multiple world champion, but sadly suffered from a lack of TV coverage.
I watch Formula 1 for the legend. For Ferrari and McLaren. For Spa and Silverstone. For AGIP and Hugo Boss. Not for Penske and Ganassi; St Petersburg and Loudon. Not for Target and ABC Supply Co. And certainly not for a winners podium that has to be towed into place by a tractor.
Oh, and if you don't like Red Bull because it's just a marketing device what do you think the FIAT owned team is? I'm sure some day people will tell the legend of the Red Bull the way they do Il Cavallino Rampante.
What about Piquet and Mansell, Senna and Prost, Vileneuve and Arnoux people say. When Senna was demolishing the record books it was downright boring. No different than Vettel today. And before the recent movie Senna always came across as a total douchebag. People complained that Prost made it look too easy! Mansell was hard to like - and I'm English. And Piquet? Well the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...
Really, IMHO one of the most interesting drivers was Patrick Tambay who always had something pithy and interesting to say to the cameras - not unlike Vettel - instead of sounding like a corporate drone, but Tambay never won bushels of races or a world championship so he's a side note in F1 history. Sir Jackie Stewart was a great quote and a multiple world champion, but sadly suffered from a lack of TV coverage.
I watch Formula 1 for the legend. For Ferrari and McLaren. For Spa and Silverstone. For AGIP and Hugo Boss. Not for Penske and Ganassi; St Petersburg and Loudon. Not for Target and ABC Supply Co. And certainly not for a winners podium that has to be towed into place by a tractor.
Oh, and if you don't like Red Bull because it's just a marketing device what do you think the FIAT owned team is? I'm sure some day people will tell the legend of the Red Bull the way they do Il Cavallino Rampante.
04-12-2012, 01:42 PM
#25
Originally Posted by davidc1' timestamp='1333912838' post='21587772
Speaking of the old days....
You know what was exciting? No speed limits in the pits!
Now that was exciting. Seeing the cars go down pit lane, and remember, in F1 there is no "pit wall", at 120mph was awesome.
You know what was exciting? No speed limits in the pits!
Now that was exciting. Seeing the cars go down pit lane, and remember, in F1 there is no "pit wall", at 120mph was awesome.
That is defiantly "exciting", but not desirable.
04-12-2012, 10:47 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's tough coming up with a ruleset that can bring back what made F1 worth watching, but step one is killing the idea of everyone using the same engine. The cornerstone of F1 was thePutingmix of different solutions to the same problem - how to win a race.
Putting everyone on the same tires and engine means aero is one of the only areas left for innovation, and there's no trade-off of durability vs powerband there. It certainly doen't save money for anyone.
I say go back to an open formula allowing multiple engine designs and limit tire width to limit speeds. Tie minimum weight to engine design and don't even bother to regulate aero, just limit minimum and maximum floor and wing height, and total car width. If large engines dominate for two seasons, shift the formula to favor cylinder count vs. displacement, or whatever. Spur development by ignoring team costs - big teams will spend whatever, but small teams can give up on a design with minimal loss if they can benefit from frequent rule changes. The frequency of rule changes naturally controls costs - no team is going to sink too much into a specific set-up because they know too much success will spur a rule change that strips them of any advantage.
Formula 1 became boring long ago as a result of "progress".
Putting everyone on the same tires and engine means aero is one of the only areas left for innovation, and there's no trade-off of durability vs powerband there. It certainly doen't save money for anyone.
I say go back to an open formula allowing multiple engine designs and limit tire width to limit speeds. Tie minimum weight to engine design and don't even bother to regulate aero, just limit minimum and maximum floor and wing height, and total car width. If large engines dominate for two seasons, shift the formula to favor cylinder count vs. displacement, or whatever. Spur development by ignoring team costs - big teams will spend whatever, but small teams can give up on a design with minimal loss if they can benefit from frequent rule changes. The frequency of rule changes naturally controls costs - no team is going to sink too much into a specific set-up because they know too much success will spur a rule change that strips them of any advantage.
Formula 1 became boring long ago as a result of "progress".
04-13-2012, 07:54 AM
#27
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 17,792
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
It's tough coming up with a ruleset that can bring back what made F1 worth watching, but step one is killing the idea of everyone using the same engine. The cornerstone of F1 was thePutingmix of different solutions to the same problem - how to win a race.
Putting everyone on the same tires and engine means aero is one of the only areas left for innovation, and there's no trade-off of durability vs powerband there. It certainly doen't save money for anyone.
I say go back to an open formula allowing multiple engine designs and limit tire width to limit speeds. Tie minimum weight to engine design and don't even bother to regulate aero, just limit minimum and maximum floor and wing height, and total car width. If large engines dominate for two seasons, shift the formula to favor cylinder count vs. displacement, or whatever. Spur development by ignoring team costs - big teams will spend whatever, but small teams can give up on a design with minimal loss if they can benefit from frequent rule changes. The frequency of rule changes naturally controls costs - no team is going to sink too much into a specific set-up because they know too much success will spur a rule change that strips them of any advantage.
Formula 1 became boring long ago as a result of "progress".
Putting everyone on the same tires and engine means aero is one of the only areas left for innovation, and there's no trade-off of durability vs powerband there. It certainly doen't save money for anyone.
I say go back to an open formula allowing multiple engine designs and limit tire width to limit speeds. Tie minimum weight to engine design and don't even bother to regulate aero, just limit minimum and maximum floor and wing height, and total car width. If large engines dominate for two seasons, shift the formula to favor cylinder count vs. displacement, or whatever. Spur development by ignoring team costs - big teams will spend whatever, but small teams can give up on a design with minimal loss if they can benefit from frequent rule changes. The frequency of rule changes naturally controls costs - no team is going to sink too much into a specific set-up because they know too much success will spur a rule change that strips them of any advantage.
Formula 1 became boring long ago as a result of "progress".
04-13-2012, 05:01 PM
#28
Registered User
^But they're all practically the same, especially with the engine freeze.
I can't wait for the new engine regs so we can see some engine development again. Very boring to only hear of aero developments.
I can't wait for the new engine regs so we can see some engine development again. Very boring to only hear of aero developments.
04-17-2012, 04:39 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, there is one engine manufactured by four different companies.
By "different engines" I mean v8's, straight 6's, flat ten's, whatever, all competing on the same track at the same time. That used to define the spirit of F-1. There were rulesets that coupled forced induction or minimum car weight to motor design and displacement. Inclusionary ideas, not rules to eliminate any possibility of innovation.
A good example is LeMans Prototypes. Teams have very real choices when deciding on a powerplant and chassis. And it makes for exciting racing year after year.
By "different engines" I mean v8's, straight 6's, flat ten's, whatever, all competing on the same track at the same time. That used to define the spirit of F-1. There were rulesets that coupled forced induction or minimum car weight to motor design and displacement. Inclusionary ideas, not rules to eliminate any possibility of innovation.
A good example is LeMans Prototypes. Teams have very real choices when deciding on a powerplant and chassis. And it makes for exciting racing year after year.
04-17-2012, 07:30 AM
#30
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 17,792
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Voodoo_S2K' timestamp='1334332461' post='21604735
...
Ummm....there are four different engines being used in F1.
Ummm....there are four different engines being used in F1.
By "different engines" I mean v8's, straight 6's, flat ten's, whatever, all competing on the same track at the same time. That used to define the spirit of F-1. There were rulesets that coupled forced induction or minimum car weight to motor design and displacement. Inclusionary ideas, not rules to eliminate any possibility of innovation.
A good example is LeMans Prototypes. Teams have very real choices when deciding on a powerplant and chassis. And it makes for exciting racing year after year.