Just Another Recent Article of the State of F1
06-30-2015, 07:25 PM
#1
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
Member Since: Dec 2005
Location: Port Arthur, Texas 77642
Posts: 8,475
Received 331 Likes
on
241 Posts
Just Another Recent Article of the State of F1
Formula One falling in attendance and functioning like a business with too many voices in management that can't agree on anything.
Analysis: Formula One in dire need of a complete overhaul
June 29, 2015
Read more: http://autoweek.com/article/racing/f...#ixzz3eaYdLES0
Here's what what's wrong with F1 and how to fix it
The result of the Austrian Grand Prix should have surprised no one who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to this year’s Formula One season.
Austria’s race was a parade, as most of them have been for the past several years. About the only thing surprising, ironically, is that an organization dealing with speed should take so much time grinding its way into irrelevance. No one, it seems, is happy with the state of world drivers’ championship racing.
Not Bernie Ecclestone, who controls the series.
Not the FIA, supposedly running it.
Not the teams, or the drivers, or the spectators.
When the German Grand Prix is canceled because no one can cut a suitable deal and a 24-hour touring-car event becomes that country’s most important race, what more do you need to know?
The real question is, of course, was Formula One ever relevant?
A brief history of how we got to where we are:
Go back to racing’s beginnings, where the basic flaws were built into the first infrastructure. That, as much as anything, guaranteed the problems of 2015 would be inevitable.
The automobile was invented in 1886. The first races were held in 1893. Since then, the sport, if you want to call it that, has never been truly organized on a worldwide scale but has been more or less a reflection of the society around it. The first international organization—the predecessor to today’s FIA—was founded in 1904. It took them until 1931 to establish a European championship, and the world championship wasn’t born until 1950—46 years after the founding. Speed, it’s wonderful.
The AIACR (then) and the FIA (now) were (and are) by and large a group of well-born, wealthy individuals who could afford the time and money to travel to Paris and play at being administrators—but they were basically a bunch of amateurs when it came to the business of racing.
Grand Prix racing might have presented a romantic image to Americans, and there is no doubt great drivers were involved, but the fields were thin and the events were not great money makers.
The most classic example of a lack of depth was probably the 1956 Grand Prix of Germany, where Juan Manuel Fangio qualified on the pole with a Nürburgring mark of 9:51, and a Swiss private-entry driver by the name of Ottorino Volonterio brought up the rear of the 22-car field with a time slightly in excess of 14 minutes.
You could look it up.
When television became a commercial marketing medium in the U.S., TV was still, for the most part, a government-run affair in most of Europe, and no one ever thought to put together a package of races and sell it.
Until Bernie came along.
Ecclestone is 84 now and showing signs of slippage, but in his prime he was the first one to see a pile of money sitting there just waiting to be picked up.
Fast-forward about 40 years, and we have a situation where everything has gotten so expensive hardly anyone can afford to play.
It was inevitable.
When you let the money run the show, this has to happen.
So we have ridiculous compromises.
What other sport do you know where you can buy your way into a world championship, almost regardless of your talent or experience? Although the skill of the leading six or eight drivers on the F1 starting grids has always been obvious, those in the rear have been little more than mobile chicanes. Today’s price of admission ranges, depending on whom you believe, from $10 million to as much as $30 million.
What other sport do you know where $200 million buys you, figuratively speaking, one white chip in the poker game? The cost for running a low-budget, field-filling team in today’s economy was recently estimated
at $219 million.
What other sport do you know where an energy-drink promoter was able to embarrass the world’s oldest automaker for close to five years? Do they serve Red Bull in the company cafeteria now that Mercedes is winning?
What other series do you know of where the races have resembled parades for at least five years?
Some solutions:
In order to make F1 more attractive, it has to become more affordable. Since engine development is the most expensive item, change the rules. The new F1 should mandate:
-- A displacement limit of, say, 3.0 liters and six cylinders, with the basic blocks only eligible after a minimum of 500,000 have been produced for use in passenger cars.
-- A limit of five crew members accompanying each car, both in the garage and over the wall at pit stops. Much cheaper than the battalions some teams bring today.
-- None of this “must-change” nonsense concerning tires. Under today’s regulations, the championship could be won not by the fastest driver, but the team making the best guesses on tire swaps. Is that racing’s purpose? Read the FIA regulation on this point if you are in doubt.
But even then, there’s still more that can be done: Split the drivers’ and constructors’ championships. A race counts for one, not for both. Doubles the number of race dates and TV attractions.
Require drivers to have a minimum number of races—and successes—in lower-category events (F3, F2) before being allowed to move up.
Go back to some of the “classic” courses—most notably, the Nürburgring.
And hope it doesn’t rain on Sundays.
By Leo Levine
Analysis: Formula One in dire need of a complete overhaul
June 29, 2015
Read more: http://autoweek.com/article/racing/f...#ixzz3eaYdLES0
Here's what what's wrong with F1 and how to fix it
The result of the Austrian Grand Prix should have surprised no one who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to this year’s Formula One season.
Austria’s race was a parade, as most of them have been for the past several years. About the only thing surprising, ironically, is that an organization dealing with speed should take so much time grinding its way into irrelevance. No one, it seems, is happy with the state of world drivers’ championship racing.
Not Bernie Ecclestone, who controls the series.
Not the FIA, supposedly running it.
Not the teams, or the drivers, or the spectators.
When the German Grand Prix is canceled because no one can cut a suitable deal and a 24-hour touring-car event becomes that country’s most important race, what more do you need to know?
The real question is, of course, was Formula One ever relevant?
A brief history of how we got to where we are:
Go back to racing’s beginnings, where the basic flaws were built into the first infrastructure. That, as much as anything, guaranteed the problems of 2015 would be inevitable.
The automobile was invented in 1886. The first races were held in 1893. Since then, the sport, if you want to call it that, has never been truly organized on a worldwide scale but has been more or less a reflection of the society around it. The first international organization—the predecessor to today’s FIA—was founded in 1904. It took them until 1931 to establish a European championship, and the world championship wasn’t born until 1950—46 years after the founding. Speed, it’s wonderful.
The AIACR (then) and the FIA (now) were (and are) by and large a group of well-born, wealthy individuals who could afford the time and money to travel to Paris and play at being administrators—but they were basically a bunch of amateurs when it came to the business of racing.
Grand Prix racing might have presented a romantic image to Americans, and there is no doubt great drivers were involved, but the fields were thin and the events were not great money makers.
The most classic example of a lack of depth was probably the 1956 Grand Prix of Germany, where Juan Manuel Fangio qualified on the pole with a Nürburgring mark of 9:51, and a Swiss private-entry driver by the name of Ottorino Volonterio brought up the rear of the 22-car field with a time slightly in excess of 14 minutes.
You could look it up.
When television became a commercial marketing medium in the U.S., TV was still, for the most part, a government-run affair in most of Europe, and no one ever thought to put together a package of races and sell it.
Until Bernie came along.
Ecclestone is 84 now and showing signs of slippage, but in his prime he was the first one to see a pile of money sitting there just waiting to be picked up.
Fast-forward about 40 years, and we have a situation where everything has gotten so expensive hardly anyone can afford to play.
It was inevitable.
When you let the money run the show, this has to happen.
So we have ridiculous compromises.
What other sport do you know where you can buy your way into a world championship, almost regardless of your talent or experience? Although the skill of the leading six or eight drivers on the F1 starting grids has always been obvious, those in the rear have been little more than mobile chicanes. Today’s price of admission ranges, depending on whom you believe, from $10 million to as much as $30 million.
What other sport do you know where $200 million buys you, figuratively speaking, one white chip in the poker game? The cost for running a low-budget, field-filling team in today’s economy was recently estimated
at $219 million.
What other sport do you know where an energy-drink promoter was able to embarrass the world’s oldest automaker for close to five years? Do they serve Red Bull in the company cafeteria now that Mercedes is winning?
What other series do you know of where the races have resembled parades for at least five years?
Some solutions:
In order to make F1 more attractive, it has to become more affordable. Since engine development is the most expensive item, change the rules. The new F1 should mandate:
-- A displacement limit of, say, 3.0 liters and six cylinders, with the basic blocks only eligible after a minimum of 500,000 have been produced for use in passenger cars.
-- A limit of five crew members accompanying each car, both in the garage and over the wall at pit stops. Much cheaper than the battalions some teams bring today.
-- None of this “must-change” nonsense concerning tires. Under today’s regulations, the championship could be won not by the fastest driver, but the team making the best guesses on tire swaps. Is that racing’s purpose? Read the FIA regulation on this point if you are in doubt.
But even then, there’s still more that can be done: Split the drivers’ and constructors’ championships. A race counts for one, not for both. Doubles the number of race dates and TV attractions.
Require drivers to have a minimum number of races—and successes—in lower-category events (F3, F2) before being allowed to move up.
Go back to some of the “classic” courses—most notably, the Nürburgring.
And hope it doesn’t rain on Sundays.
By Leo Levine
06-30-2015, 10:18 PM
#2
I tend to agree with a lot of the suggestions for improving the outrageous costs of the sport. The engine thing tho, not so sure about. IMO, an F1 engine is supposed to be crazy, high revving, loud, purpose built insanity. Starting with a production block sounds good, but I just don't think it's gonna be doable with the power they will want to make, and still be reliable. And from a marketing stand point, it's not necessary, nobody's impala, camaro, etc has an iron block sb2 in it, but it doesn't stop NASCAR's Chevy fans from buying. Maybe it could work, I'm not an engine builder. But I think most fans, or at least the ones I know, would much rather have the cars running NA 20k rpm V10s or V12s. And no hybrid stuff, I'm tired of watching cars retire from malfunctions with the overly complex electric crap. That's another issue I have, why do race cars have to be good on fuel? Are their emissions really that horrible? Why can't they just run alternative fuels (NOT electric) and not be so limited on the amount they use? Maybe I'm crazy, but that's my take on it. Rant over, carry on!
07-01-2015, 12:42 AM
#3
Safety Car
I have no idea who the hell Leo is but he clearly has little-to-no idea what he's talking about.
There's a lot to quibble with in that bit (Bernie is *not* in control, for one - would F1 look like it does today if he *was* in control?) but more than anything I have to laugh out loud at the idea of stock block motors. Euro-IRL!!! Talk about a great way to drive all the knowledgeable gearheads of the planet to WEC with a single announcement! Open-wheel Chevy Cruise racing!! Yeah!!
"Go back to some of the 'classic' courses—most notably, the Nürburgring."
The Nordschliefe?! What total nonsense. Let me get this straight - as you work to bring the costs of F1 down you want to bring top-level open-wheel racing back to a 14 mile long race track in the forest. How much would it cost to make that track F1 safe? A primary reason F1 left the old Nurburgring was that it was too long to properly man with safety vehicles and personnel. You could probably run all of the *current* F1 teams for a *year* on what it would cost for just the first pass at making that track F1 capable. Wow.
As for the bit about Red Bull shaming Ferrari for "close to five years" why is that an issue? The flip side of that complaint is the idea that Ferrari should be dominating everyone by virtue of them being the oldest team. Why would anyone else bother to race, then?
And Red Bull dominated by virtue of doing it better. Period. The fact that they are an energy drink company does offer up some valid complaints re: their role in the big picture but winning races by virtue of hiring good engineers and drivers is not one of them.
Leo should have submitted that piece to The Onion. Or Boy's Life (is that still printed?) Shame on Autoweek for lowering their editorial standards so far.
If you want to read a much better piece along the same lines with much better "solution" ideas (and far fewer ludicrous assumptions):
http://www.pitpass.com/54085/Let-Us-Not-Go-Gently
Z//
There's a lot to quibble with in that bit (Bernie is *not* in control, for one - would F1 look like it does today if he *was* in control?) but more than anything I have to laugh out loud at the idea of stock block motors. Euro-IRL!!! Talk about a great way to drive all the knowledgeable gearheads of the planet to WEC with a single announcement! Open-wheel Chevy Cruise racing!! Yeah!!
"Go back to some of the 'classic' courses—most notably, the Nürburgring."
The Nordschliefe?! What total nonsense. Let me get this straight - as you work to bring the costs of F1 down you want to bring top-level open-wheel racing back to a 14 mile long race track in the forest. How much would it cost to make that track F1 safe? A primary reason F1 left the old Nurburgring was that it was too long to properly man with safety vehicles and personnel. You could probably run all of the *current* F1 teams for a *year* on what it would cost for just the first pass at making that track F1 capable. Wow.
As for the bit about Red Bull shaming Ferrari for "close to five years" why is that an issue? The flip side of that complaint is the idea that Ferrari should be dominating everyone by virtue of them being the oldest team. Why would anyone else bother to race, then?
And Red Bull dominated by virtue of doing it better. Period. The fact that they are an energy drink company does offer up some valid complaints re: their role in the big picture but winning races by virtue of hiring good engineers and drivers is not one of them.
Leo should have submitted that piece to The Onion. Or Boy's Life (is that still printed?) Shame on Autoweek for lowering their editorial standards so far.
If you want to read a much better piece along the same lines with much better "solution" ideas (and far fewer ludicrous assumptions):
http://www.pitpass.com/54085/Let-Us-Not-Go-Gently
Z//
07-01-2015, 09:59 AM
#4
Melting Slicks
Pro Mechanic
Member Since: Nov 2013
Location: Ex DPRK, now just N of Medford, OR
Posts: 2,917
Received 736 Likes
on
546 Posts
Define 'relevant'... current racing (like any other sport) is really just an entertainment. The awesome engineering advancements in F1 don't seem to have too much crossover into production vehicles.
Want racing to lead the way again in production car advancement? The future is headed toward more efficient power plants. (or it'll be in self-driving technology, but PLEASE don't go there!). Let's throw the rules open. No engine displacement limit. Reinstate refueling, but limit the size of the fuel tank (10 gallons?) and make them refuel with a filling station fuel pump. Hybrid powerplants, electric power with unlimited battery size (along with battery weight...). Fuel cell, Diesel engine, turbine engine... It's gonna cost BIG bucks, but I bet we'd see some great things from it again!
Want racing to lead the way again in production car advancement? The future is headed toward more efficient power plants. (or it'll be in self-driving technology, but PLEASE don't go there!). Let's throw the rules open. No engine displacement limit. Reinstate refueling, but limit the size of the fuel tank (10 gallons?) and make them refuel with a filling station fuel pump. Hybrid powerplants, electric power with unlimited battery size (along with battery weight...). Fuel cell, Diesel engine, turbine engine... It's gonna cost BIG bucks, but I bet we'd see some great things from it again!
07-01-2015, 12:37 PM
#5
It's all about the technology trickle down. That is why I love F1, I'm an automotive engineer and welcome the technology changes. Sound will be an old school thing and get phased out by the new generations, much like carb lovers of the past.
07-01-2015, 01:21 PM
#6
Safety Car
The original purpose of both sports car racing (Le Mans, for example) and the more esoteric "single seater" racing (not really "single seat" for a long time at the beginning) both of which were forms of racing designed to show off a *production* automobile's durability and quality when challenged by both other auto makers and difficult conditions (see "Paris to Dakar".) The other reason was one still relevant today - corporate image. Setting speed records, for example.
Precious little tech has actually "trickled down" from racing to road cars. In fact, most of it has gone the other way.
Modern (aka "usable in a production environment") disk brakes is one idea that transferred from racing to road cars (but the original concept was a road car system that was just way ahead of its time due to materials science not being up to the task.) See Jaguar at Le Mans in 1955.
Fuel injection (gasoline) was an aviation thing.
A lot of the things that F1 has had to ban in the past 20-30 years have been road car tech that was seen to aid the driver too much. They made an exception for the semi-auto transmissions as eliminating driver screw-ups saved the teams a ton of money.
I agree re: the sound of cars. On the one hand, I look forward to the day that I don't have to hear all the local brats driving around the neighborhood with the mufflers removed from their Civics (the modern day equivalent of putting playing cards in the spokes of your bicycle.) On the other hand, I will never attend a Formula E race no matter what they do as the very idea of listening to an hour and a half of electric motor whine as a replacement for proper internal combustion exhaust output is a non-starter for one raised on Ferrari flat-12 F1 cars and Top Fuel dragsters
Btw, did everyone notice that the top two times set at last weekend's Pike's Peak Hillclimb were set by all-electric vehicles?
http://autoweek.com/article/racing/2...nal-hill-climb
Z//
07-01-2015, 04:45 PM
#7
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, Dallas, Detroit, SoCal, back to Boston MA
Posts: 30,607
Received 239 Likes
on
167 Posts
Kind of ironic, it's a Formula class, therefore they can write whatever rules they want, but they still can't come up with the proper formula
An F1 engine based on a stock block works
Remember the 1400+hp BMW powered F1 cars?
Given the HP race with the current street cars it's no that bad an idea
That's what saved IMSA, remember the 333SP "stock block" cars?
Saw that Pike Peak result, makes me think that some of the teams are calling him for advice, or SHOULD be.
An electric car I worked on in college ran Pikes Peak, would have got faster except it caught up to a naturally aspirated <cough>Corvette</cough>
If they want to make the cars FASTER, and they really want the hybrid thing to take off, why don't the take the LIMITS OFF the hybrid system? Still use the same amount of fuel, but let them RECOVER as much as possible.
An F1 engine based on a stock block works
Remember the 1400+hp BMW powered F1 cars?
Given the HP race with the current street cars it's no that bad an idea
That's what saved IMSA, remember the 333SP "stock block" cars?
Saw that Pike Peak result, makes me think that some of the teams are calling him for advice, or SHOULD be.
An electric car I worked on in college ran Pikes Peak, would have got faster except it caught up to a naturally aspirated <cough>Corvette</cough>
If they want to make the cars FASTER, and they really want the hybrid thing to take off, why don't the take the LIMITS OFF the hybrid system? Still use the same amount of fuel, but let them RECOVER as much as possible.
07-01-2015, 05:19 PM
#8
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, Dallas, Detroit, SoCal, back to Boston MA
Posts: 30,607
Received 239 Likes
on
167 Posts
Fan Survey results
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fa...ut-no-gimmicks
Formula 1 fans have made clear that they do not wish to see a radical overhaul of grand prix racing to make it better, but do want more 'pure' changes to improve the sport.
The first results of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association Global Fan Survey, which was conducted in association with Motorsport.com, have been revealed and have delivered a fascinating insight in to what fans currently think of F1.
The Executive Summary of the Survey can be downloaded at gpda.motorsport.com.
Record response
Although F1 has faced calls for a revolution over recent weeks, the record number of respondents – 217,756 took part – suggest that more considered response is all that is needed.
With the Survey having been weighted to encompass all types of fans – from the hardcore followers to those with a passing interest – the representative sample has delivered some key indicators.
There was overwhelming support for believing that F1 needs to be more competitive (89 per cent), needs to attract more fans (85 per cent) and that its business interests are now too important (77 per cent).
No gimmicks wanted
However, to address the situation, fans do not want to see gimmicks introduced in a desperate means of delivering more entertainment.
There was not much support for reverse grids (18 per cent), success ballast (26 per cent) or customer cars (44 per cent).
Only a few liked the ideas of teams using the same cars and engine (16 per cent), a standard engine (16 per cent) or having fewer teams running more cars (14 per cent)
Instead, 74 per cent of fans believe the rules should be relaxed to allow greater diversity of cars and technology. They preferred to see a tyre war (80 per cent) and the return of refuelling (60 per cent).
A slim majority were also in favour of a budget cap (54 per cent) and points being awarded for fastest lap (51 per cent)
Worrying trends
Compared to the results of the last major global survey, conducted by the Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) in 2010, there are some indications that the sport has not moved forward.
Less than 10 per cent of fans believe F1 is healthier now than then, and key word attributes produced by fans to describe F1 now are 'Expensive, Technological and Boring', compared to 'Technological, Competitive and Exciting' five years ago.
There are also indications that F1 is not attracting a new or younger audience, with more than three-quarters of respondents having followed the sport for more than 10 years – with a clear trend for supporting it less because of the move to pay TV.
Power to the drivers
A vast majority of fans – 88 per cent – believe that F1 needs to feature the best drivers, but only 45 per cent think grand prix racing currently does that.
They also want drivers to be honest with fans (86 per cent), take a role in implementing changes to improve the sport (78 per cent) and work to bring fans closer to F1 (75 per cent).
Fans listened to
GPDA chairman Alex Wurz said the drivers would be analysing the results imminently so they could speak to F1 chiefs.
"Formula 1 may need to ask itself some important questions, but that's why we wanted the fans to have their say," he said.
"Through the survey the fans are clear: they don't want a radical overhaul of grand prix racing that takes it away from its historic roots.
"It may sound simple, but the best drivers and teams fighting on track, in the most exciting cars is their priority. And we, the drivers, passionately share that view.
"They want competitive sport, not just a show, and they think that F1 ´s business interest has become too important, jeopardizing our sport.
"The GPDA will be looking at the results in closer detail over the next few weeks, and from there we intend to work with F1's key stakeholders to put fan feedback at the centre of our sport's future."
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fa...ut-no-gimmicks
Formula 1 fans have made clear that they do not wish to see a radical overhaul of grand prix racing to make it better, but do want more 'pure' changes to improve the sport.
The first results of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association Global Fan Survey, which was conducted in association with Motorsport.com, have been revealed and have delivered a fascinating insight in to what fans currently think of F1.
The Executive Summary of the Survey can be downloaded at gpda.motorsport.com.
Record response
Although F1 has faced calls for a revolution over recent weeks, the record number of respondents – 217,756 took part – suggest that more considered response is all that is needed.
With the Survey having been weighted to encompass all types of fans – from the hardcore followers to those with a passing interest – the representative sample has delivered some key indicators.
There was overwhelming support for believing that F1 needs to be more competitive (89 per cent), needs to attract more fans (85 per cent) and that its business interests are now too important (77 per cent).
No gimmicks wanted
However, to address the situation, fans do not want to see gimmicks introduced in a desperate means of delivering more entertainment.
There was not much support for reverse grids (18 per cent), success ballast (26 per cent) or customer cars (44 per cent).
Only a few liked the ideas of teams using the same cars and engine (16 per cent), a standard engine (16 per cent) or having fewer teams running more cars (14 per cent)
Instead, 74 per cent of fans believe the rules should be relaxed to allow greater diversity of cars and technology. They preferred to see a tyre war (80 per cent) and the return of refuelling (60 per cent).
A slim majority were also in favour of a budget cap (54 per cent) and points being awarded for fastest lap (51 per cent)
Worrying trends
Compared to the results of the last major global survey, conducted by the Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) in 2010, there are some indications that the sport has not moved forward.
Less than 10 per cent of fans believe F1 is healthier now than then, and key word attributes produced by fans to describe F1 now are 'Expensive, Technological and Boring', compared to 'Technological, Competitive and Exciting' five years ago.
There are also indications that F1 is not attracting a new or younger audience, with more than three-quarters of respondents having followed the sport for more than 10 years – with a clear trend for supporting it less because of the move to pay TV.
Power to the drivers
A vast majority of fans – 88 per cent – believe that F1 needs to feature the best drivers, but only 45 per cent think grand prix racing currently does that.
They also want drivers to be honest with fans (86 per cent), take a role in implementing changes to improve the sport (78 per cent) and work to bring fans closer to F1 (75 per cent).
Fans listened to
GPDA chairman Alex Wurz said the drivers would be analysing the results imminently so they could speak to F1 chiefs.
"Formula 1 may need to ask itself some important questions, but that's why we wanted the fans to have their say," he said.
"Through the survey the fans are clear: they don't want a radical overhaul of grand prix racing that takes it away from its historic roots.
"It may sound simple, but the best drivers and teams fighting on track, in the most exciting cars is their priority. And we, the drivers, passionately share that view.
"They want competitive sport, not just a show, and they think that F1 ´s business interest has become too important, jeopardizing our sport.
"The GPDA will be looking at the results in closer detail over the next few weeks, and from there we intend to work with F1's key stakeholders to put fan feedback at the centre of our sport's future."
07-01-2015, 10:43 PM
#9
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
Member Since: Dec 2005
Location: Port Arthur, Texas 77642
Posts: 8,475
Received 331 Likes
on
241 Posts
I have no idea who the hell Leo is but he clearly has little-to-no idea what he's talking about.
There's a lot to quibble with in that bit (Bernie is *not* in control, for one - would F1 look like it does today if he *was* in control?) but more than anything I have to laugh out loud at the idea of stock block motors. Euro-IRL!!! Talk about a great way to drive all the knowledgeable gearheads of the planet to WEC with a single announcement! Open-wheel Chevy Cruise racing!! Yeah!!
"Go back to some of the 'classic' courses—most notably, the Nürburgring."
The Nordschliefe?! What total nonsense. Let me get this straight - as you work to bring the costs of F1 down you want to bring top-level open-wheel racing back to a 14 mile long race track in the forest. How much would it cost to make that track F1 safe? A primary reason F1 left the old Nurburgring was that it was too long to properly man with safety vehicles and personnel. You could probably run all of the *current* F1 teams for a *year* on what it would cost for just the first pass at making that track F1 capable. Wow.
As for the bit about Red Bull shaming Ferrari for "close to five years" why is that an issue? The flip side of that complaint is the idea that Ferrari should be dominating everyone by virtue of them being the oldest team. Why would anyone else bother to race, then?
And Red Bull dominated by virtue of doing it better. Period. The fact that they are an energy drink company does offer up some valid complaints re: their role in the big picture but winning races by virtue of hiring good engineers and drivers is not one of them.
Leo should have submitted that piece to The Onion. Or Boy's Life (is that still printed?) Shame on Autoweek for lowering their editorial standards so far.
If you want to read a much better piece along the same lines with much better "solution" ideas (and far fewer ludicrous assumptions):
http://www.pitpass.com/54085/Let-Us-Not-Go-Gently
Z//
There's a lot to quibble with in that bit (Bernie is *not* in control, for one - would F1 look like it does today if he *was* in control?) but more than anything I have to laugh out loud at the idea of stock block motors. Euro-IRL!!! Talk about a great way to drive all the knowledgeable gearheads of the planet to WEC with a single announcement! Open-wheel Chevy Cruise racing!! Yeah!!
"Go back to some of the 'classic' courses—most notably, the Nürburgring."
The Nordschliefe?! What total nonsense. Let me get this straight - as you work to bring the costs of F1 down you want to bring top-level open-wheel racing back to a 14 mile long race track in the forest. How much would it cost to make that track F1 safe? A primary reason F1 left the old Nurburgring was that it was too long to properly man with safety vehicles and personnel. You could probably run all of the *current* F1 teams for a *year* on what it would cost for just the first pass at making that track F1 capable. Wow.
As for the bit about Red Bull shaming Ferrari for "close to five years" why is that an issue? The flip side of that complaint is the idea that Ferrari should be dominating everyone by virtue of them being the oldest team. Why would anyone else bother to race, then?
And Red Bull dominated by virtue of doing it better. Period. The fact that they are an energy drink company does offer up some valid complaints re: their role in the big picture but winning races by virtue of hiring good engineers and drivers is not one of them.
Leo should have submitted that piece to The Onion. Or Boy's Life (is that still printed?) Shame on Autoweek for lowering their editorial standards so far.
If you want to read a much better piece along the same lines with much better "solution" ideas (and far fewer ludicrous assumptions):
http://www.pitpass.com/54085/Let-Us-Not-Go-Gently
Z//
07-01-2015, 10:48 PM
#10
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
Member Since: Dec 2005
Location: Port Arthur, Texas 77642
Posts: 8,475
Received 331 Likes
on
241 Posts
Bernie Ecclestone says he and Jean Todt can fix Formula One
June 26, 2015
Read more: http://autoweek.com/article/formula-...#ixzz3ehM6JM5Y
Embattled F1 boss says if FIA is on board, they can make changes
Bernie Ecclestone says he could step in now and fix Formula One's problems, so long as FIA president Jean Todt is also on board.
As the sport's apparent crisis deepens, played out daily in the form of never-ending negative headlines, some are even now calling for F1 supremo Ecclestone's scalp.
"I think he's done a remarkable job, but time has played its role and he should go," former team owner and longtime Ecclestone ally Eddie Jordan told BBC Radio.
The sport has found itself watching its global popularity and audience numbers decline while, at the same time, being straight-jacketed by the Strategy Group when it comes to change.
Men like Christian Horner, the Red Bull team chief, think power should be put back into the hands of Ecclestone and Todt.
F1 legend Gerhard Berger agrees: "If those two could combine their power, they would have the problem quickly under control.
"That's what we need now," he told Austria's Kurier.
Ecclestone, however, said that the way the Strategy Group is structured means that he and Todt could sweep in the necessary change -- so long as Todt is on board.
"At the moment, Jean and I could do what we want," he told Sky recently. "It's the way it's been set up.
"We've both got the same amount of votes, and the teams have got equal to one of our votes. So if Jean and I agree on something, that's how it is."
Ecclestone said the problem is that Frenchman Todt, whose low-profile, hands-off approach is in stark contrast to his predecessor Max Mosley's, is always seeking consensus.
"One person out of step," said Ecclestone, "and we've got problems."
Indeed, as Todt met for an ultra-rare interview this week with a group of reporters in Paris, he sounded reluctant to join Ecclestone in sorting out a crisis.
"I do not believe we are facing cancer," he is quoted as saying by UOL Esporte, "we are facing a headache. So we need to find a prescription for a headache, not a cure for cancer.
"I do not think Formula One needs big changes," Todt added.
And so the elusive search for consensus continues, despite many believing F1 cannot wait for a package of rule changes to be ready for 2017.
"If we can find a good proposal that is accepted unanimously," Todt is quoted as saying by Spain's Marca ahead of the early July meeting of the Strategy Group, "then it could be implemented in 2016.
"Otherwise, we have until February 28, 2016 to implement the regulations for 2017," he added.
By GMM
June 26, 2015
Read more: http://autoweek.com/article/formula-...#ixzz3ehM6JM5Y
Embattled F1 boss says if FIA is on board, they can make changes
Bernie Ecclestone says he could step in now and fix Formula One's problems, so long as FIA president Jean Todt is also on board.
As the sport's apparent crisis deepens, played out daily in the form of never-ending negative headlines, some are even now calling for F1 supremo Ecclestone's scalp.
"I think he's done a remarkable job, but time has played its role and he should go," former team owner and longtime Ecclestone ally Eddie Jordan told BBC Radio.
The sport has found itself watching its global popularity and audience numbers decline while, at the same time, being straight-jacketed by the Strategy Group when it comes to change.
Men like Christian Horner, the Red Bull team chief, think power should be put back into the hands of Ecclestone and Todt.
F1 legend Gerhard Berger agrees: "If those two could combine their power, they would have the problem quickly under control.
"That's what we need now," he told Austria's Kurier.
Ecclestone, however, said that the way the Strategy Group is structured means that he and Todt could sweep in the necessary change -- so long as Todt is on board.
"At the moment, Jean and I could do what we want," he told Sky recently. "It's the way it's been set up.
"We've both got the same amount of votes, and the teams have got equal to one of our votes. So if Jean and I agree on something, that's how it is."
Ecclestone said the problem is that Frenchman Todt, whose low-profile, hands-off approach is in stark contrast to his predecessor Max Mosley's, is always seeking consensus.
"One person out of step," said Ecclestone, "and we've got problems."
Indeed, as Todt met for an ultra-rare interview this week with a group of reporters in Paris, he sounded reluctant to join Ecclestone in sorting out a crisis.
"I do not believe we are facing cancer," he is quoted as saying by UOL Esporte, "we are facing a headache. So we need to find a prescription for a headache, not a cure for cancer.
"I do not think Formula One needs big changes," Todt added.
And so the elusive search for consensus continues, despite many believing F1 cannot wait for a package of rule changes to be ready for 2017.
"If we can find a good proposal that is accepted unanimously," Todt is quoted as saying by Spain's Marca ahead of the early July meeting of the Strategy Group, "then it could be implemented in 2016.
"Otherwise, we have until February 28, 2016 to implement the regulations for 2017," he added.
By GMM
07-01-2015, 11:30 PM
#11
Safety Car
An F1 engine based on a stock block works
Remember the 1400+hp BMW powered F1 cars?
Remember the 1400+hp BMW powered F1 cars?
That's what saved IMSA, remember the 333SP "stock block" cars?
Not a Ferrari (a Dallara) and not a really a stock block engine (hard to consider the F50 as a "production car: )Z//
Last edited by Zoxxo; 07-02-2015 at 04:50 AM.
07-02-2015, 12:05 PM
#12
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, Dallas, Detroit, SoCal, back to Boston MA
Posts: 30,607
Received 239 Likes
on
167 Posts
If they do look at stock block engines then they'll have to consider low volume production otherwise manufactures like Ferrari wouldn't be interested.