Biggest QUESTION of ALL!!

[jcsaleen]

Ok, Ive been thinking about this for quite sometime now. IF F1 is the pinnacle of motorsports and drivers are the best. why are the cars sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo limited with all these damn reg's. Why now V8's common! this is rediculious if the drivers cn keep up its there fault and the leading team shouldnt be penalized for it! F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of perfection as far motorsports go, the F1 car is even recognized as the "Jet fighter on land". The engineers job ~ to build the best and fastest machine as possible..... The drivers job to race and handle the car regauless of how powerfull it is. Im damn sure there are plenty of unseen drivers who could race better then half the F1 drivers out there now. back to the main point is F1 is the fastest and most competitive motorsport then WHY are they limiting it with all these REGULATIONS? Its rediculious my team BAR makes a break through and uses a "Torque converter" and are forced to remove it even tough they engineeered it. Im sure you all heard the story, but it just little things like that all the way to big things like down grading to "V8'S" in the O6 season.

Anyway feel free to put imput in on this...

My personal opinion F1 is going down the tubes they might as Well race Formula lights and call F1 at this rate. Theres a new Reg everydamn month jesus. I dont mind your engine have to last through practice, qualifying & the race, that challenges the teams. But when you take power and aerodynamics away I think that unfair.

BTW ~ The whole schumacher winning thing big deal hes out in another year.

[drdisque]

the problem with just going really fast is that the racing is very bad (even worse than it is now) and that privateer teams have NO hope of ever competing. I think what makes the golden years of F1 so special is that there were a number of competetive privateer teams. To keep them around, you need to keep costs, and therefore speeds down

[kfoote]

In the last 10 years or so, there has been a shift from racing being about innovation to being about refinement in the name of "making the show better". This will never result in reducing costs, only affect where the money is spent. Generally, the more changes that are made, the more expensive it gets, not the other way around, as teh teams with teh bigger budgets have the ability to adapt more quickly. The biggest issue with F1 lately is more that the changes haven't been announced far enough in advance rater than what the changes are.

If I could change one rule right now that would completely change F1, I would announce that right now, for 2006 15" wheels will be used rather than the current 13". That would change virtually everything on the car.

[Doug E Fresh]

Well the rules aren't exactly slowing the cars way down. Renault was able to run their new car within a second of the Valencia track record.

[drdisque]

they're preventing the cars from getting any faster though.

[Dreamspawn]

Personally the FIA is going to kill F1 with all the rule changes it knocks the already struggling priverteer teams down even more.

Personally i find the Ferria/FIA consiperacy theory intersting. If u havn't herd there was a guy online who said "The FIA was making all these rule changes to actully help Ferrari" Personally i think when schumacher retires is when F1 will pick up again. Because all the teams will be fighting against each other every race.

Who do u think will back McLaren in the coming years? I personally would like to see Porsche or Lambo.

[RallyRaider]

Biggest change needed? Get rid of Max Mosely. Then get rid of the cigarette money. After that get rid of the two race engine rule, introduce control tyres, ban refuelling, remove entry fees and franchise system, return to slicks, change back to the 10-6-4-3-2-1 points system, restore the classic tracks to their former glory, dump the new micky mouse "tourist" tracks, allow team orders, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Oh and if possible resurrect Lotus, Tyrrell and Brabham

F1 is no longer about innovation, the FIA actively attempt to ban innovations even before the technology is created. It is all about bums on seats and maximising revenue. You only need to see this years crop of awkward looking cars, created according to rules partially drawn up to provide maximum sponsor signage.

I find it very interesting to read comments from Ron Dennis stating his main aim for his team is to bring them to the point where they don't need F1 and can move elsewhere when the current Concorde Agreement expires. Only Ferrari have signed an extension beyond 2007, breaking solidarity (or were they never part of it?) for a rumoured 150 million extra dollars.

[Dreamspawn]

Originally Posted by RallyRaider

Biggest change needed? Get rid of Max Mosely. Then get rid of the cigarette money. After that get rid of the two race engine rule, introduce control tyres, ban refuelling, remove entry fees and franchise system, return to slicks, change back to the 10-6-4-3-2-1 points system, restore the classic tracks to their former glory, dump the new micky mouse "tourist" tracks, allow team orders, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera..

Get rid of the cigarette money so pull the sponsership for Ferrari and BAR? Also if they did for F1 they would do it for WRC to which would be Puegote (sp) sponser as well.

Ban refuelling like ban pit stops? why would u want to do that?

Some classic tracks do need to be restored, i personally would like to see them run the Nordschleife ciruit of Nurbürgring. What do u consider the micky mouse "tourist" tracks. Personally i think they need a differnt track the indy here in the U.S.

[kfoote]

Originally Posted by RallyRaider

Biggest change needed? Get rid of Max Mosely.

I missed that, good call Get rid of Bernie Ecclestone, too.

Then get rid of the cigarette money.

I disagree with this. Tobacco advertising is HUGE money going into F1 because the tobacco companies don't really have anywhere else to advertise.

After that get rid of the two race engine rule, introduce control tyres,

agreed with these.

ban refuelling,

I disagree here. carrying the necessary fuel at the start of the race to cover the entire distance is IMO a bigger safety hazard than the risk of refueling.

remove entry fees and franchise system, return to slicks, change back to the 10-6-4-3-2-1 points system,

agreed.

restore the classic tracks to their former glory, dump the new micky mouse "tourist" tracks...

IMO, these have to be taken on an individual basis. I think the newest tracks, Bahrain, China, and Malaysia are actually quite good. The worst current track layouts that I feel need to be adressed the most are the new Hockenheimring, Imola, Hungary, Monaco, Canada, USA, and get rid of the horrid Mercedes stadium section at the Nurburgring. Logistically, there will likely not be any changes to Imola (government), Monaco (space), Canada (space), or the USA (Tony George won't spend the $$$), but the others something should be done to.

I agree with the remainder of your above post.

[jcsaleen]

They keep bs ing about there budget they why dont they go out and get some sponsors jesus. + kill the cig money.

[RallyRaider]

Originally Posted by kfoote

I disagree with this. Tobacco advertising is HUGE money going into F1 because the tobacco companies don't really have anywhere else to advertise.

What I meant by get rid of the Tobacco advertising is to get money out of the sport across the board. Money really doesn't make that much difference to the spectacle or the genuine human ingenuity of design (provided it is allowed to be exercised). Does spending 365 days a year in a team owned windtunnel really make for a better F1 that a few grabbed hours in a rented one?

Originally Posted by kfoote

I disagree here. carrying the necessary fuel at the start of the race to cover the entire distance is IMO a bigger safety hazard than the risk of refueling.

Adds another dimension to the race, all we have at the moment is a three or four round sprint. By making the cars operate through a huge range of fuel weight, different cars will come on song at different stages of the race. He who is fast early may not necessarily be so at the end. Alain Prost was a master of that kind of balancing act.

Originally Posted by kfoote

IMO, these have to be taken on an individual basis. I think the newest tracks, Bahrain, China, and Malaysia are actually quite good. The worst current track layouts that I feel need to be adressed the most are the new Hockenheimring, Imola, Hungary, Monaco, Canada, USA, and get rid of the horrid Mercedes stadium section at the Nurburgring. Logistically, there will likely not be any changes to Imola (government), Monaco (space), Canada (space), or the USA (Tony George won't spend the $$$), but the others something should be done to.

For sure there are valid safety concerns at some tracks. The ones I was thinking of was the travesty of the new Hockenhiemring, sanitised A1-Ring and the joke of a track at Indianapolis.

[drdisque]

I don't see how scoring 1-8 hurts the racing, they still score fewer positions than any other form of racing and its been shown that increasing the number of positions scored increases participation. With all due respect to the "classic" tracks, most of them are pretty lousy places to race. They're too narrow to pass and weren't designed with modern racecars in mind. I love races at Monte Carlo, but Monza, Spa, and Imola are incredibly poor racetracks from a racing standpoint. I definitley don't think the problem is the "new" racetracks.

[RallyRaider]

IMHO Spa is the only decent racetrack left on the calendar! Sepang and its clones could have been so much better, they are almost interchangeable except for the architecture and sand in Bahrain’s case.

First place only receiving 2 points more than second has the potential to skew the championship. Consider, only 2 years ago Kimi Raikkonen almost lifted the crown with a singe win compared to Schumacher's six. Okay so, Kimi did better with the machinery at his disposal so probably deserved to the championship on that level. However I feel F1 should be about winning races, not point collection. If one goes back through the last ten years or so the new point system would have changed the outcome of several championships if it was applied at the time. None of them for the better in my opinion. It is a device to prolong the mathematical certainty of the championship being decided, a move towards NASCAR's system.

[jcsaleen]

Originally Posted by RallyRaider

You only need to see this years crop of awkward looking cars, created according to rules partially drawn up to provide maximum sponsor signage.

I really think thats sad if its coming to that.

[street_racer_00]

Originally Posted by drdisque

I don't see how scoring 1-8 hurts the racing, they still score fewer positions than any other form of racing and its been shown that increasing the number of positions scored increases participation. With all due respect to the "classic" tracks, most of them are pretty lousy places to race. They're too narrow to pass and weren't designed with modern racecars in mind. I love races at Monte Carlo, but Monza, Spa, and Imola are incredibly poor racetracks from a racing standpoint. I definitley don't think the problem is the "new" racetracks.

You think they are gonna just chuck monaco off the schedule because there is poor racing? That would be like NASCAR dropping the daytona 500 because of poor racing(and yes, no matter how exciting in looks, it is a TERRIBLE form of racing)...So you think Spa should be dropped...great lets just drop all the great drivers tracks in favor of cookie-cutter road courses where passing is practically illegal...and Imola? Imola is the only course on the schedule where there are long straightaways connected by tight turns(albeit stupid chicanes)...long straightaway+tight turns=passing. The tracks aren't the problems at all. Everyone know the problem is the fact that F1 cars are so aero-dependent, that it is nearly impossible to get close enough to pass because of the disturbed air that another car creates.