The problem with Formula one?

[Kicking-back]

Formula One hasn't failed to slow the cars as such - it's managed to avoid speeds getting ludicrous.

Without changes the cars would be even faster.

[Super Tourer]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

These are startling figures that I was not aware of. Do you have a source, ST?

Thanks

The BusinessF1 annual report on team budgets.

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by Super Tourer

The BusinessF1 annual report on team budgets.

F1 Magazine did a feature story on the topic last year. The numbers are dramatic.

[BootsOntheSide]

Originally Posted by agwiii

Over the last 54 years, we've had a relatively stable number of teams. Some come and disappear. Some come and go. Ferrari has the best record of stability.

In the early 80s we had around 10 teams, by the late 80s there were about 20, and by 1997 we had 10 again. Interesting view of 'stability' there. Since a set of rules were brought in to limit the increase in costs, we haven't lost many teams, and those that have gone have been replaced.

Even in recent times there are plenty of examples of teams being successful without manufacturer support - Jordan's best season was as a largely independent team, and Stewart did more while semi-works than Jaguar could when they replaced Jackie with a revolving door of clueless execs. Prost 'losing' the awful Peugeot engines and going over to buying Ferraris off the shelf also lead to an (admittedly brief and minor) recovery. Senna won 5 races in 1993 using customer Ford engines, beating Schumacher with works Ford engines in the process.

Personally I hate the idea of watching a field full of just a hadnful of different types of cars, with team orders preventing them from racing each other. I hate the idea of teams racing for commercial reasons with no racing soul. I hate the idea of the driver becoming increasingly irrelevent. Maybe it's just me who enjoys racing more than technology and politics. It's a shame the public are bombarded with F1 in place of some of the other championships, the generic "it's just cars going round at round advertising cigarettes at 200mph" criticisms might be less frequent if they were.

[Sodemo]

What you said Boots...

[Mekola]

One of the problems of Formula One is their low number of cars. Now we are accustomed to see 20 of them but, these who are old followers or read history knows it used to be 25-30 cars between 1973 and 1995, with a maximum peak of 39 cars in 1989.
When other major sport events (World Soccer, Olympics, Tennis tournaments, even Rugby) tends to expand their number of entrants, Formula One tends to shrink them. All these sports tends to be more expensive along the time but the results are different. I wonder why that happens.

[Armco Bender]

1950's and '60's there were only half a dozen or less competitive cars in most GP's but yet the crowds were huge.

[Mekola]

Yes, but in that era Formula One hasn't the international level of interest that has now. At that time Sportscars were at almost equal level of interest. And you can't forget at that time wildcards were allowed, thing that is almost impossible in modern F1.

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Even in recent times there are plenty of examples of teams being successful without manufacturer support - Jordan's best season was as a largely independent team, and Stewart did more while semi-works than Jaguar could when they replaced Jackie with a revolving door of clueless execs.

Interesting view of 'being successful.' Jordan made it out of the also ran category in 1999 when they placed third in the championship. That was Stewart's best year, finishing fourth in the championship. Stewart's strategy was brilliant, and he made a nice profit on the deal.

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

1950's and '60's there were only half a dozen or less competitive cars in most GP's but yet the crowds were huge.

Excellent point! A large grid is meaningless. This has always been a fixation at Indianapolis, where they have 11 rows of 3 cars. While it makes a spectacle of sound and fury, it only means more back markers and also rans. The number of competitive cars (with top quality drivers) is always limited. Your guesstimate of "half a dozen or less competitive cars" sounds about right. If competitive cars means a car/driver that either has won in the past, or we believe can win, that is the situation we have today.

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by Mekola

Yes, but in that era Formula One hasn't the international level of interest that has now. At that time Sportscars were at almost equal level of interest. And you can't forget at that time wildcards were allowed, thing that is almost impossible in modern F1.

Mekola, you are so right. Today's Formula One has rules that prevent innovation. There are areas of technology in the car I drive today that are prohibited by the rules -- yet Formula One should be the pinacle of the sport. When regular production cars are more technologically advanced than Formula One, it is time to change the rules.

[Kicking-back]

Should Formula One always have the ultimate technology?

Should it have ABS? That would mitigate against racing.

Fully auto gearboxes?

Four wheel drive?


Formula One is simply the FIA's fastest single seater category - I see no reason why it should have to have every whizz-bang gizmo.

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Should Formula One always have the ultimate technology? Should it have ABS? That would mitigate against racing. Fully auto gearboxes? Four wheel drive? Formula One is simply the FIA's fastest single seater category - I see no reason why it should have to have every whizz-bang gizmo.

Gizmo. Perhaps Bernie should wonder about this question. If Formula One is only the "FIA's faster single seat category," it will self-destruct. History does not support this perspective.

The rules prevent innovation. Each year, Formula One becomes increasingly technologically obsolete. Production cars already have more advanced suspension, power delivery, and power management systems.

If the manufacturers cannot demonstrate and innovate, they will leave Formula One. This is exactly the threat of the breakaway formula. Without the automobile manufacturers, there is no future for Formula One. If the manufacturers cannot demonstrate their technological superiority on the track, they will leave - and Formula One will be a non-event of single seat profile racers -- if it exists at all.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by agwiii

The rules prevent innovation. Each year, Formula One becomes increasingly technologically obsolete. Production cars already have more advanced suspension, power delivery, and power management systems.

This is just miles off! More advanced suspension? Huh? Road car susp. might have more features to enable it to respond to the varied demands of using a car on the public road, but in terms of sophistication for the job it is designed to do there is no contest at all - quality of manufacture, design, materials, minaturisation & packaging, data gathering and pure sheer sophistiation and polishing to perfection are from a different planet. - Power delivery and management? That is a joke right? There are dozens upon dozens of engineers working right now and at avery other moment to perfect what is already as close to perfect as can be imagined - and they will carry on doing just that. Again, road cars are restricted by huge variables in ambient condiditons, and many other conflicting parameters, such as regulations, emissions and (above all) mass-manufacture and COST - if you put a road car engine management unit in an F1 car they would loose so much speed, for a myriad of reasons.

I've been trying to avoid this thread, because I am so looking forward to the new season I can't really see that there is much of a problem at all!

[Tweed]

I've never understood the argument that F1 should have all the 'gizmos' it can have to help future development in road cars. The two things are completely different! There doesn't have to be a link between them, save that both have a steering wheel and four tyres!

[Marbot]

A lot of road car tech comes from rallying,touring cars and the like.The manufactures would like you to believe that F1 is the pinnacle for road car technology but the cars actually have more in common with aeroplanes.

[Super Tourer]

Originally Posted by agwiii

Gizmo. Perhaps Bernie should wonder about this question. If Formula One is only the "FIA's faster single seat category," it will self-destruct. History does not support this perspective.

The rules prevent innovation. Each year, Formula One becomes increasingly technologically obsolete. Production cars already have more advanced suspension, power delivery, and power management systems.

If the manufacturers cannot demonstrate and innovate, they will leave Formula One. This is exactly the threat of the breakaway formula. Without the automobile manufacturers, there is no future for Formula One. If the manufacturers cannot demonstrate their technological superiority on the track, they will leave - and Formula One will be a non-event of single seat profile racers -- if it exists at all.

Ford left because it couldn't afford it, Toyota are rumbling about the need for results to match their huge investment, the new CEO of Renault is alleged to want to see evidence that F1 results in more car sales. No new manufacturers took the oppurtunity to 'buy' Jaguar or Jordan at 'knock down' prices.

Manufacturers generally leave motorsport because they are not winning and/or cannot justify the costs - I have never heard a manufacturer quit a series on the grounds that there there wasn't enough room for technology.

The GPWC is largely about money, the issues are that the car makers have made a rod for their own backs by running up the costs to such an extent that they will ALL find it increasingly difficult to justify the amounts they are asking their company boards to part with. Particularly Toyota who have almost nothing by way of results to show for the eye watering amount of money they have poured into F1.

Demonstrating innovation and technology is the sort of pitch a motorsport boss makes to his CEO when trying to get a budget for motorsport - it sounds great, but nowadays zip ends up in road cars. The other side of this is that it's great if your technology is the best, but most casual observers will opine that BMW and Mercedes technology (for example) is not as good as Ferrari's. Here's the rub, when the CEO flicks on his TV screen on a Sunday or checks the results on Monday, he's interested in results - no good having the latest high tech gearbox, if you're 8th...

In anycase surely the 2005 rules encourage innovation, the designers have to claw back the aero they have lost, particularly from the diffuser.

Similarly, the tyre makers will have to work harder and match performance with durablity - surely that's what road car tyre technology is all about - you want a tyre for your road car that will last 20,000 miles, which hardly squares with one seeming to last 15 laps of a race before going bald.

It's important to remember what pays for all of this, it's the core business shifting products that pays for car makers and automotive brands to indulge themselves in F1 - this means success and 'headline grabbers' are important.

The fact that you may have improved electronic gear shifts by a nano second is of only passing interest to the majority of 'your' potential customers.

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by Glen

More advanced suspension? Huh? Road car susp. might have more features to enable it to respond to the varied demands of using a car on the public road, but in terms of sophistication for the job it is designed to do there is no contest at all - quality of manufacture, design, materials, minaturisation & packaging, data gathering and pure sheer sophistiation and polishing to perfection are from a different planet.

You are right, there is no contest at all between the sophistication of a production car suspension and that of a Formula one car. The Formula One car's suspension is quite expensive but inherently crude. It is a refinement of the technology of the 1950s. The shock absorbers are limited to mechanical devices, without any electronics other than telemetry.

Formula One's brief flirtation with 'active suspension' was terminated by the rules. Today's advanced production cars have more sophisticated active suspension systems than Formula One cars of that bygone era. The production Mercedes Benz of today has a more sophisticated and technologically advanced suspension than the new Mercedes Benz that Kimi and Juan will drive this year.

[JohnSSC]

I have been reading this and other threads like it for some time. There usually is talk about the good old days of the '60's and '70's when there were large, diverse fields. Then there is some discussion about the current rules etc and their impact on the Series currently.

I think what has been missed here is the paradigm shift that occured in the late '70's or early '80's. F1, thanks to BE & Co became, more organized - more corporate, if you will. Teams ceased being teams (see Rob Walker or Lord Hesketh) and began to be businesses (See Ferrari, McLaren, Williams) with heavy manufacturer investment (Toyota/BAR) because now F1 is "global."

The rules can be changed until BE turns purple and it won't change a thing. Revenues will be what they are and therefore costs will always be high. No matter what the rules package is a team that has access to $300 million per annum will spend $300 million per annum. It matters not a bit whether you have 346 testing days per year or none. The Teams will find a way to spend the money. Further, the Teams at the Top have a vested interest in ensuring that they continue to get the biggest slices of the revenue pie. The whole system as it stands mitigates against reducing costs or encouraging new Teams to join the grid.

It is, therefore, not possible to "return" F1 to the days of yon and yore. It cannot happen under the current model.

Like it or not, unless something dramatic happens to the current business model, F1 will remain pretty much what it is currently.

[BootsOntheSide]

So how can you say that car companies need Formula 1 to be at the top in technology for their cars to be innovative? It shouldn't be dependent on your driving skill as to whether you can avoid crashing or go fast enough (within the speed limit) in a road car - in Formula 1 it should. Right now we routinely get 17 year old kids jumping into F1 cars, getting within 3-5 seconds of the times a superstar can achieve within a couple of days, and saying that it's 'easy'. Driving a car at pinnacle of motorsport should never be easy.

And as Glen says, Formula 1 suspension has much less to deal with than Rally suspension, which I'm sure is as advanced as anything on a road car.

[Andrew Hornsey]

F1 is always talked about as the tecnical pinnacle, but what is more important? The drivers or the constructors championship?

I have always looked at it as the drivers championship being the main one of the two.

You could argue that to find the best drivers you could use something simple, like an old mini. But this is not correct - you have to have a car that is fast and powerful to show who is the best driver - with no disrespect to them, not all club competitors have the ability to drive an F1 car, whereas most could drive a mini!

In theory, F1 does not have to be the most technical - it is just that to get the performance required, the technology needs to be the best.

If you look at the drivers championship, simplistically you could have manual boxes, no driver aids, etc. The engines could be technically advanced to produce the power required, and that does to a certain extent allow the manufacturers to show how technically advanced they are.

What do we watch the sport for - to see who can produce the best car, or to see who is the best driver. If it is soley down to technology, you could just have one driver who does, for example, 5 laps in each car and see which is the quickest - not my idea of good motorsport, but it does fulfill the requirements of the manufacturers.

Before we try and solve "the problem with F1", we need to set the parameters of what the sport should be all about. And whilst the manufacturers are important, have they ever have been as demanding as they now are - after all, they only have profits in mind.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by agwiii

Formula One's brief flirtation with 'active suspension' was terminated by the rules. Today's advanced production cars have more sophisticated active suspension systems than Formula One cars of that bygone era. The production Mercedes Benz of today has a more sophisticated and technologically advanced suspension than the new Mercedes Benz that Kimi and Juan will drive this year.

Do you know why active suspension was banned?

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hornsey

F1 is always talked about as the tecnical pinnacle, but what is more important? The drivers or the constructors championship?

Originally Posted by Andrew Hornsey

I have always looked at it as the drivers championship being the main one of the two.

You could argue that to find the best drivers you could use something simple, like an old mini. But this is not correct - you have to have a car that is fast and powerful to show who is the best driver - with no disrespect to them, not all club competitors have the ability to drive an F1 car, whereas most could drive a mini!

In theory, F1 does not have to be the most technical - it is just that to get the performance required, the technology needs to be the best.

If you look at the drivers championship, simplistically you could have manual boxes, no driver aids, etc. The engines could be technically advanced to produce the power required, and that does to a certain extent allow the manufacturers to show how technically advanced they are.

What do we watch the sport for - to see who can produce the best car, or to see who is the best driver. If it is soley down to technology, you could just have one driver who does, for example, 5 laps in each car and see which is the quickest - not my idea of good motorsport, but it does fulfill the requirements of the manufacturers.

Before we try and solve "the problem with F1", we need to set the parameters of what the sport should be all about. And whilst the manufacturers are important, have they ever have been as demanding as they now are - after all, they only have profits in mind.

Andrew:

You raise very interesting point, which is similar to that raised by JohnSSC - the nature of Formula One.

I believe the manufacturer's championship is primary, and the driver's is secondary. I am more interested in the employer, than the employee. I am more interested in the decision-maker. Alain Prost learned which was the tail and which was the dog when he was fired by Ferrari. While Frank Williams is often criticized for the way he handles his drivers, it is Frank's decision. He is the boss, and the drivers are his employees.

The transformation of Formula One from a gentleman's sport probably began when Germany poured money into the German factory teams in the 1930s. We moved away from Formula One as politics after the war.

Then Colin Chapman began a new era of Formula One as business with his Gold Leaf Lotus Team. His search for money was natural. Banjo Mathews was not the only one to have echoed the sentiment that "Racing takes money, kid. How fast do you want to go?" Racing Teams are on an unending search for money.

Does Formula One exist to provide entertainment for enthusiasts?

Does Formula One exist to provide a locus for the best drivers to showcase their talents?

Does Formula One exist to provide a locus for the manufacturers to showcase their technology?

Does Formula One exist to provide the manufacturers with a development arena for their engineers?

Or?

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by Glen

Do you know why active suspension was banned?

Which is more technologically sophisticated?

1. A Rolex self-winding, mechanical watch that is a certified chronometer?

2. A wrist watch that automatically communicates with, and synchronizes itself with the Atomic Clock at the US Naval Observatory?

[agwiii]

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

The rules can be changed until BE turns purple and it won't change a thing. Revenues will be what they are and therefore costs will always be high. No matter what the rules package is a team that has access to $300 million per annum will spend $300 million per annum. It matters not a bit whether you have 346 testing days per year or none. The Teams will find a way to spend the money. Further, the Teams at the Top have a vested interest in ensuring that they continue to get the biggest slices of the revenue pie. The whole system as it stands mitigates against reducing costs or encouraging new Teams to join the grid.

It is, therefore, not possible to "return" F1 to the days of yon and yore. It cannot happen under the current model.

Like it or not, unless something dramatic happens to the current business model, F1 will remain pretty much what it is currently.

Well stated, John.

In the 1950s, Banjo Mathews said, "Racing costs money, kid, how fast do you want to go?"

Money can't buy you happiness (or racing success), but the absence of money will bring you a great deal of unhappiness (and racing failure).