The Official 2012 F1 Thread. Spoilers possible!

[dlearl476]

Originally Posted by HarveyMushman

Whitmarsh, like the rest of them, is being a made a rich man by F1 as it is currently contrived. Of course he's going to defend the stupid tires and every other gimmick that keeps his legion of engineers in work. And until F1 shit-cans the advertisement hoardings wings and drastically, comprehensively reduces the cars' reliance on aerodynamic downforce for their performance, it'll be one gimmick after another propping up the charade.

I've believed since the mid-nineties that the best thing the FIA could do to make F1 more enjoyable was ban aerodynamic aides not part of the body proper and ground effects, and specify a tire that was durable enough to be consistent over the course of its life, but skinny enough that, due to the power and handling capabilities of the cars, teams would be inclined to change them at least once, possibly twice, during a race. It keeps pit strategy in the race and it rewards drivers who are better at managing their tire wear.

[wxwax]

I'm thinking I'll live to see the day when fueling is made brain-dead safe and easy, at which point F1 will re-introduce it. Not because cars need to be refueled, but because it adds another element of uncertainty and excitement.

[viajero]

I would like to see a racing format like world superbike, with two sprint races, one Saturday after qualifying, and another on Sunday. Each would be an hour to one and a half hours in length (or maybe 200k in length). Increased points for the top five, skewed more towards winning. No refueling, no tire changes, just racing.

[dlearl476]

Originally Posted by wxwax

I'm thinking I'll live to see the day when fueling is made brain-dead safe and easy, at which point F1 will re-introduce it. Not because cars need to be refueled, but because it adds another element of uncertainty and excitement.

Hard to say. Besides the safety issues, I think one reason they went away from refueling is the huge cost of the rigs, which every team needed 2 of, plus a spare. IMO, anything more "brain-dead safe and easy" = more expensive.

[dlearl476]

Originally Posted by viajero

I would like to see a racing format like world superbike, with two sprint races, one Saturday after qualifying, and another on Sunday. Each would be an hour to one and a half hours in length (or maybe 200k in length). Increased points for the top five, skewed more towards winning. No refueling, no tire changes, just racing.

With today's cars, No refueling, no tire changes, just racing = parade.

In the bigger picture, I'd like to see the point for fast lap returned, and perhaps even an "index of economy" point like in the old Le Mans rules.

On the plus side, I think the three part qualifying is the best thing to happen to F1 in twenty years.

[A. T. T-W]

Originally Posted by JNRobert

Better yet make them 2.5l 4 cylinder turbo's with boost and rev limits (say 2 bar and 16k). That would be even more relevant.

Ferrari would veto it (again). Thankfully.

F1 isn't meant to be relevant. A large part of the attraction is that it's spectacularly irrelevant.

Originally Posted by viajero

I would like to see a racing format like world superbike, with two sprint races, one Saturday after qualifying, and another on Sunday. Each would be an hour to one and a half hours in length (or maybe 200k in length). Increased points for the top five, skewed more towards winning. No refueling, no tire changes, just racing.

Despite the technological complexity, F1 remains one of the least complex forms of motorsport. Aggregate-win formulae are much less successful in attracting TV audiences and F1 is primarily a TV-sport (people don't seem to mind time-trials, endurance races and the like when they can see, smell and sometimes, feel the action by being present, probably in the same way that those who attend F1 events rarely see much actual racing). Go to Goodwood and watch the Hill Climb. You get to see a few moments of action as the entrants pass. It makes crap TV but when you are there it's very involving.

Originally Posted by dlearl476

In the bigger picture, I'd like to see the point for fast lap returned, and perhaps even an "index of economy" point like in the old Le Mans rules.

On the plus side, I think the three part qualifying is the best thing to happen to F1 in twenty years.

I'd hate to see F1 adopt additional points for fastest lap etc. That would lead to handicapping and possibly classes, the way that other formulae have gone. BTCC is a classic case; success weight penalties, reversed-grids and complex class rules. It all makes for pretty uninspiring TV but attend an event and it's very different.

I preferred the old one-hour, "as many laps as you like" qualifying, it threw-up more topsy-turvy grids. The current version is much more predictable, easier for commentators to manage and for TV companies to insert ad-breaks into.

[Flys Lo]

Originally Posted by wxwax

Matchett said reverse is required by the regs, and that they're built so lightweight that they often break when used. Lots of cars went into that runoff area and the Caterham did indeed break its reverse.

A formula Atlantic that I (with a friend) race in the VARA series gets about 5 uses out of its reverse before it breaks.

[JNRobert]

Originally Posted by A. T. T-W

Ferrari would veto it (again). Thankfully.

F1 isn't meant to be relevant. A large part of the attraction is that it's spectacularly irrelevant.

Exactly.

[ccambern]

Originally Posted by JNRobert

Better yet make them 2.5l 4 cylinder turbo's with boost and rev limits (say 2 bar and 16k). That would be even more relevant.

I think relevance is... erm... relative in F1. If the manufacturers believe a given formula is relevant, then it is. The engine formula is really just a marketing opportunity; Audi at Lemans, etc. You just need a formula that keeps costs in check and lets the manufacturers pretend that there is some relation between their race cars and their road cars.

I honestly don't think F1 will gain or lose fans on the basis of its engine formula as long as the cars are (very) fast and they sound good. I've been to several Indycar races this year (my company handles webcasting for SCCA World Challenge) and I don't think the new Indycars are really fast enough. F1 cars are jaw-dropping, even on TV. Indycars are quick, but not exactly breathtaking. Whatever F1 does, it needs to make sure the cars continue to be incredibly fast, not just in corners, but in straight-line acceleration.

[wxwax]

Maldonado really let down his team today. First, he completely misjudged the turn at Casino. I mean, completely. Drove into the wall. Amazing mistake, tore-up his car. Then he loses his composure and slashes across Sergio Perez. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Nice to see Michael take a pole. Shame about the grid penalty.

[wxwax]

Originally Posted by dlearl476

Hard to say. Besides the safety issues, I think one reason they went away from refueling is the huge cost of the rigs, which every team needed 2 of, plus a spare. IMO, anything more "brain-dead safe and easy" = more expensive.

I'm sure you're right about the cost of a rig. Still, every time F1 changes its regs, it costs the teams huge amounts of money. Renault this week complained that F1's dithering on the new engine has cost them 50 million (not sure what denomination), so far. I bet a rig costs less than that!

[wxwax]

Originally Posted by A. T. T-W

Ferrari would veto it (again). Thankfully.

F1 isn't meant to be relevant. A large part of the attraction is that it's spectacularly irrelevant.

Which of the teams agrees with you?

Mercedes and Renault apparently don't. Neither does Ferrari.

Mercedes and Renault seem to believe a smaller displacement engine would not only benefit their business, but would also be a draw for other manufacturers to enter the sport.

Ferrari opposes smaller engines for much the same reason: it doesn't see them as helping market its high-power brand.

It's certainly not my place to say that they're right or wrong. But manufacturers who are currently involved in F1 seem to believe that engine displacement (and the hybrid engine) could have an impact their business, be it positive or negative.

[A. T. T-W]

Well Renault and Mercedes both make small Euro-boxes with small engines, they want F1 to adopt the new regulations (Renault were particularly keen on the proposed 4-Cylinder in-line that Ferrari was dead set against) not for some idealistic rubbish about encouraging more manufacturers but because it would do their sales good. Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari supply the maximum number of teams that the (current) regulations permit. Enough to make building their own F1 engines viable, possibly even profitable.

I doubt that any manufacturer would be tempted to join-in on the basis that the engine configuration suited their market profile. They've seen the way that the three latest teams have struggled, the risk that they'd fail spectacularly would be too great to chance. If VW/Audi, who have quite a bit of racing experience, won't take the plunge, Porsche won't come back, Honda, who have a very long association both as an engine supplier and race-team and Toyota haemorrhaged vast amounts of money to achieve sod-all, why would Kia or Proton or Tata try?

Ferrari don't build "relevant" cars. They'd be happy to stick with V8s or even a return to V12s I suspect. Ferrari have always only ever been interested in dominating F1, even if that means less than a handful of teams competing (more chances for them to win).

No. Renault and Mercedes-Benz are using the "relevant" argument fallaciously. Whereas Ferrari are at least honest that teeny-weeny engines are not relevant to their road-car business.

I also question whether more manufacturers are needed. The grids are more full than they've ever been, there doesn't seem to be any rumblings from teams about to withdraw and from an infra-structure point of view, many circuits couldn't accommodate more teams in the pit-lane anyway.

There's still a split within FOTA along the old FOCA and FOMA lines. The Manufacturer element still believe that a FOTA stacked with big-money manufacturer-teams would have more clout. I doubt whether any of the 'Garagista' teams want to see changes as they'd be the ones who will have to pay whatever the engine manufacturer's demand (and one thing is certain, teeny-weeny engines won't be supplied for any less cash).

[wxwax]

Originally Posted by A. T. T-W

Well Renault and Mercedes both make small Euro-boxes with small engines, they want F1 to adopt the new regulations (Renault were particularly keen on the proposed 4-Cylinder in-line that Ferrari was dead set against) not for some idealistic rubbish about encouraging more manufacturers but because it would do their sales good.

That was implicit in their statements, I thought. And it does confirm the real-world relevance of F1 engines, if they're correct.

Ferrari have stated that they oppose a smaller engine because it hurts their marketing. Can't remember if they also dislike the hybrid, for the same reason.

It may be that they're all fibbing. This is F1, after all. But in the absence of other evidence, one must take them at their word.

[Flys Lo]

Fascinating qualifying!

Originally Posted by A. T. T-W

I also question whether more manufacturers are needed. The grids are more full than they've ever been, there doesn't seem to be any rumblings from teams about to withdraw and from an infra-structure point of view, many circuits couldn't accommodate more teams in the pit-lane anyway.

I wouldn't suggest more teams are needed... but perhaps more stronger teams. The money and resources that mainstream manufacturers bring to the table can often bring that.
Last year you could pick the qualifying order of the teams prior to the race, this year its more of a curve-ball, but you know that you won't be seeing a Caterham, HRT or Marussia on the front row. What happens after 2 years if one of those teams had Honda behind them?