formula whatever "just bring it back"

...in the end it will be Mosleys way or the Hard way. We all know what that mean...

@SAMF1: you have point about rock music; good comparison



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2009 07:14PM by stipe.

How can they allow uncapped engines for some teams they will have an extra 100-200 bhp they will simply beat the other cars.

I think that the people with 'rose-tinted glasses' have a good arguement that F1 is not as entertaining now. Yes, the racing might have always been the same, but to me it's other factors that have made F1 less appealing.

In a nutshell - the sport needs a testosterone boost. Right now, it feels like it's watered down cars, on watered down tracks, with watered down rules. Throw in the stupid politics and you've got modern F1. Like most masculine things today, it feels like it's becoming feminine... rev-limited, development-frozen engines. Extremely forgiving, uninspiring circuits. Safety-conscious, held-back rules. Now, the safety part might be important, and I agree to an extent - but I believe that danger is one of the most natural methods for a living thing to experience thrills. It's the reason that the reward hormone, dopamine, was released when our ancestors, cavemen, managed to run away from a predator and survive. He experienced danger. And I think that's what's missing from today's F1. The natural high.

Watch these videos - surely you can see what's missing?

A relatively slow, uninteresting track. But the sheer power of these cars makes it incredible. Watch it without skipping anything. Please tell me that the first time he floors it - 1:02 - you're stomach didn't turn do a backflip.


&feature=related

This is the only good example from 2009 I could find on Youtube. This might have been considered an exciting moment whilst watching the race. It's hard to believe after watching the previous video - it's dull. Almost like another junior league.




My suggestions - at least bring back a roaring engine, that makes it feel like the drivers are controlling a wild animal. De-santitise the sport a bit, although I fear that's irreversable. I know this sounds crazy, it's me dreaming, but I'd love it if suspension technology was taken back a few decades, making the cars bump around like crazy, with more sparks flying when they bottom out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you want to. [judgegrudge.mybrute.com]




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2009 11:01PM by flat tyre.

Leave these cars as they are and ban the double-decker complex diffuser for 2010.

For starters, apparently the cost cap of 45mil is not the issue, but it really has to be considering the decrease in personel some teams may have to make! So the newly proposed 100mil sounds good.

But to allow the cossies to run unrestricted?

They've had two and a half years to develop the v8!!! And the unit in 06 was no half bad! In fact at the start of the season it was arguably the best engine!

Just because the new teams will run the cossie does not entitle them to an easier ride through '10. If they cant build a good enough car then they should not be in F1, simple as. They or cossie should not need the extra boost of free development. If they do then it really should be back to F3/GP2!

Max Mosley should just piss off! Why cant the FIA just have someone capable of doing good run the FIA. Everything is his fault, and his fault alone! F1 and WRC would be so much better off with a someone else running the FIA. F1's bad name is soley down to him!

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

Well Chetster, the Cosworth was very unreliable if you remember well! I also read Max agreed on raising the cap with the goal of the cap being about 45mi by 2011, that should really help a lot. FOTA also wants the FIA to have an independent and very respected accounting firm do the audits, not the FIA itself.

Everybody wants three things from F1, but the problem is that those two contradict eachoter. They are:
- F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsport and should therefore have the best technology.
- F1 should have the best drivers, but even they should be struggling to control the cars.
- Safety

There you have it. If you want awesome technology, the cars will get easier to drive. Especially when the technology advancements are in the suspension department. The reason the old cars are so difficult to drive are not down to the sheer power, but to the difficulty of transferring that power to the road. The suspension wasn't good enough for that.
Awesome technology brings safety, but also danger. If you'd let engines be developed freely, F1 cars would be hitting 400kmh by now, if not more. Crash into a wall with that sort of speeds and you're dead. If you'd let the cars be developed freely, corner speeds would be much higher. Crash into a wall and again, you're not going to step out.

To get safety, you need to bring down speeds (less technology) and that makes the cars easier to drive.

If you want cars that are difficult to drive, you let safety go and you let the technology thing go. Technology improves the handling and makes driving the car easier (think about all the driver aids).

It's all about compromises. If you don't want drivers to die every other year, you'll have to decrease your 'interests' in the other two. Same goes for the others. Now, I don't want to see drivers die on live television so I'd have to give in on the two other things.

You can say that there is too much safety. That there should be more danger. OK, let's follow that. For instance, you could decrease the impact that cars need to be able to survive. And then freeze that number for let's say 15 years. Because there is enough safety anyway! If you don't cut speed and let the teams go, sometime it will go wrong. The FIA are desperate to keep speeds below the 360, because if you go over that, speeds really get dangerous. The FIA are preventing people from dying. Not doing anything now and wait until it goes wrong and THEN increase safety measures is curing. Now the question to you, would you rather prevent or cure?

The reason is not only safety itself, but also image. You can say that F1 is turning more feminine or whatever, that that is bad for the image. Do you think serious accidents with injuries and possibly death are better? If I were the FIA, I knew what to choose!

Now, choose one of the other things and you're giving in at the safety terrain. That's something the FIA doesn't want, because of the above. In that light, I totally agree with what the FIA are doing. Rev-limits, engine development freezes and what not. I'd rather have that (and a 'feminine' F1) than seeing that speeds are stupidly high and that we have to lose a driver every year, like in the 70s. It might go well for a while and think everything's allright, but that's what everybody thought at the start of the 90s...

Nickv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There you have it. If you want awesome technology,
> the cars will get easier to drive. Especially when
> the technology advancements are in the suspension
> department. The reason the old cars are so
> difficult to drive are not down to the sheer
> power, but to the difficulty of transferring that
> power to the road. The suspension wasn't good
> enough for that.

And that's what I miss.

> Awesome technology brings safety, but also danger.
> If you'd let engines be developed freely, F1 cars
> would be hitting 400kmh by now, if not more. Crash
> into a wall with that sort of speeds and you're
> dead. If you'd let the cars be developed freely,
> corner speeds would be much higher. Crash into a
> wall and again, you're not going to step out.

Although it might have looked like it, I'm not in favour of letting development go ahead freely (although I would welcome that if it were possible). I understand that speeds do need to be limited (although maybe a few more kph than currently! I rarely see an F1 car go above 300 now).

> It's all about compromises. If you don't want
> drivers to die every other year, you'll have to
> decrease your 'interests' in the other two. Same
> goes for the others. Now, I don't want to see
> drivers die on live television so I'd have to give
> in on the two other things.
>
> You can say that there is too much safety. That
> there should be more danger. OK, let's follow
> that. For instance, you could decrease the impact
> that cars need to be able to survive. And then
> freeze that number for let's say 15 years. Because
> there is enough safety anyway! If you don't cut
> speed and let the teams go, sometime it will go
> wrong. The FIA are desperate to keep speeds below
> the 360, because if you go over that, speeds
> really get dangerous. The FIA are preventing
> people from dying. Not doing anything now and wait
> until it goes wrong and THEN increase safety
> measures is curing. Now the question to you, would
> you rather prevent or cure?

Again, I completely understand your point. It's only them being sane that causes them to push for safety improvements. As you said earlier, danger cannot come without an increase in deaths. But, this is really what I miss - the feeling that the drivers and car were both on the absolute boundary of performance and car control. The noise. The movement. Maybe it's because I'm a bit of a thrill seeker in real life, but the first video I posted was incredibly exciting to watch for me, just for these reasons. I'd be more than happy just to watch that for two hours rather than watch a modern race (which are still good, but lacking the thrills and spills for me as you no doubt have realised by now!).

> The reason is not only safety itself, but also
> image. You can say that F1 is turning more
> feminine or whatever, that that is bad for the
> image. Do you think serious accidents with
> injuries and possibly death are better? If I were
> the FIA, I knew what to choose!

Hmm. That's it. If I were the FIA, I'd choose safety, too. Most sane people would. But unfortunately, it's the modern technology and safety possibilities that have made F1 like this. Back in the older F1, although it was dangerous by today's standards, it was as safe as they possibly knew. They felt as safe as possible, because in their minds, they didn't think that they could do more. In other words, if you asked someone about it, they'd say that it was made as safe as possible. So it was both "safe" and thrilling - safe in that if it were done, there wouldn't be an outcry that it was far too dangerous.


Again, it's me dreaming and it will never happen, but I'd love it if they could implement a rule that meant that only so much friction per square inch of rubber could be generated, limiting grip. I'd like turbo engines like from the 80's that sound incredible, with limited engine maps to prevent them being used to increase traction. I'd like a standard suspension that made the ride less smooth. And, I'd love it if the cars were huge again. They looked and sounded like wild animals!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you want to. [judgegrudge.mybrute.com]

I'd wait till next year before complaining about F1 as it is. We have yet to see how the sport will be in it's current format with evenly matched teams challenging for the championship. The banning on refueling can only improve the spectacle I feel.

I think a major problem has been the change of tracks used, partly from a safety point of view, and partly due to commercial interests. Imola and Hockenheim have been two tracks butchered by these reasons, although there are good arguments in each case for the changes (indeed in Imola's case, they were a downright necessity) We live in a world where safety is paramount, so I guess F1 has no option but to continue to try and find away around the side-effects it has on the sport.

Ok my prediction of what will now happen (based on what I read on F1 live):

McLaren, Brawn and BMW will sign up for 2010. Ferrari + Red Bull teams are breaching contract by leaving and so will likely end up staying.

Renault and Toyota are out. Flavio will buy Renault and enter the team (if he's allowed) and Toyota will go.

Prodrive or Epsilon Euskaldi will enter.

Sorted. Toyota have brought nothing to the sport anyway.

Well, according to autosport all 8 FOTA teams are forming a breakaway series and they've announced it.

[www.autosport.com]

" The Formula One Teams' Association announced on Thursday night that it is setting up a breakaway championship.

Following a four hour meeting at Renault's Enstone factory, the eight members of FOTA said it had grown frustrated with the FIA's stance against it and that it had no option but to create its own championship. "

If they stick too it, which they probably won't, F1's pretty screwed.

BBC now report it, literally 10 minutes ago:

[news.bbc.co.uk]

Oh crap. Assuming FOTA do go through with this and won't negotiate, it will be a shocking development.

At least enough other teams have applied to fill the F1 grid if this does go ahead. :S

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2009 01:47AM by EC83.

Sorery, but the only impressions I got from that first video were how crappy the track was, and how poorly put together the car was.

Sure, the engine sounds better than modern F1, but that's about the only thing I preferred.

---

K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.