[Official] Round One :Gulf Air Bahrain Grand Prix, Sakhir

[jab]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

Don't really understand why people are harping on a tire war. It's not going to happen.

No one said it was. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

Who's going to compete against Michelin and would have the resources to do so, Kumho?

Well if you reduce the cost of the tyres, perhaps even cap it, that wouldn't be a problem

Ideally you want as many manufacturers as possible so that they can spread the cost - it's not as expensive if you only have to supply 5 teams instead of 10 or whatever

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by jab

Ideally you want as many manufacturers as possible so that they can spread the cost - it's not as expensive if you only have to supply 5 teams instead of 10 or whatever

But isn't development a bigger part of the cost than actually supplying teams? Besides, if we're talking about manufacturers completely new to F1, they will need a huge investment to be able to develop tires in the first place.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

But isn't development a bigger part of the cost than actually supplying teams? Besides, if we're talking about manufacturers completely new to F1, they will need a huge investment to be able to develop tires in the first place.

A significant cost is logistical. Tyres are bulky things. Currently per car (using tyre rules from memory so I could be wrong) Bridgstone need to take 7 sets of prime and 5 sets of options plus 5 sets of extreme wets plus 5 sets of inters. For a twenty four car grid thats 2112 tyres for the whole grid, the specification is fixed so sooner or later most of them will be used.

What if you made the thing completely open, to be fair on everyone you'd need to take enough of all your, say five compounds, for every team to run any of them for the whole weekend thats eight sets of dry weather tyres in each of five compounds plus the usual wets per car making 4800 tyres for the current grid. All of them have to be made, stocked, shipped around the world and most of them will never be used because if there is a tyre war within a few races you will have a better construction or better compound and all that old stock is so much junk.

Over simplification I know but the points in this argument remain even if you flesh it out a bit.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I don't understand the criticism of those who criticised the racing.

It's fine to say that people should know what to expect, but there is such frustration with continual changes, neglecting the main one that is screamingly obvious even to non-engineers- MASSIVE aerodynamic cuts.

-

Well said!

The Rule is : The more aero the worse the racing!!!

Formula Ford, Legends, GoKarts, MotoGP, Superbike.
A 750 hp Formula Ford works for me, too much horsepower to
put down mindlessly out of every turn, manual gear changes, slip streaming an advantage, driver skill.

They took the wings off in the stroke of a pen in 1968 after Monza.
Replace them with barge boards to prevent the wheels inter-locking and provide the sponsors with signage. Racing fixed!!

Regards

wnut

[jab]

But we don't want overtaking to be too easy. We still want it to be difficult. Just possible. And it is possible to have good racing with wings

Wings are an important part of the image of the F1 car. If a group of designers gather round to set some radical new aero rules, as well as good racing, one of the key considerations will be aesthetics, because the racing can be as good as you want but people aren't going to tune in to watch cars they consider hideous

[wnut]

In my opinion many of the Formula Fords are better looking than the F1s and they would look spectacular on wide rubber. Look at the Surtees Ferrari that was on display at the race and tell me its ugly.
Overtaking will never be easy when a car is on the limit. If slipstreaming comes back into racing it will be all the better for it.
Overtaking is difficult in MotoGP, so I really do not think that theory has any weight.
Wings are detrimental to racing and ruin it. Refer Rule1 above.

Rgds

wnut

[jab]

But GP2 puts on some of the best racing out there and GP2 cars have wings

It's not black-or-white "wings are bad, so any racing with wings is bad"

Plus F1 cars without wings aren't safe. They'd be too unstable

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by jab

But GP2 puts on some of the best racing out there and GP2 cars have wings

It's not black-or-white "wings are bad, so any racing with wings is bad"

Plus F1 cars without wings aren't safe. They'd be too unstable

Well it was with the car that's just been pensioned off yes!!! Mind you even the current GP2 car still provides some overtaking per race, not just one or two races per season like F1 does.

Aero has to be made less important and put massive fat tyres on the cars if that helps keep them on the black stuff.

[old man]

Originally Posted by jab

But we don't want overtaking to be too easy. We still want it to be difficult. Just possible. And it is possible to have good racing with wings

Wings are an important part of the image of the F1 car. If a group of designers gather round to set some radical new aero rules, as well as good racing, one of the key considerations will be aesthetics, because the racing can be as good as you want but people aren't going to tune in to watch cars they consider hideous

I thought they just did that in 2008?

[jab]

They didn't go far enough. Gary Anderson said that before they even hit the track

This isn't just restricting where they can and can't design I'm talking about - I'm saying standardise the wings and the whole of the rear of the car. It needs to be as close to a single chassis formula as you can get without the cars looking identical

And the designers in charge of the rules have to be independent. Otherwise you're always going to be compromised

And the cars don't look good now either. The wings are out of scale. Aesthetics are important too

[frostie]

Originally Posted by jab

They didn't go far enough. Gary Anderson said that before they even hit the track

This isn't just restricting where they can and can't design I'm talking about - I'm saying standardise the wings and the whole of the rear of the car. It needs to be as close to a single chassis formula as you can get without the cars looking identical

And the designers in charge of the rules have to be independent. Otherwise you're always going to be compromised

And the cars don't look good now either. The wings are out of scale. Aesthetics are important too

I'm all in favour of having better racing and making overtaking somewhat easier but if you go down the route of standardising rear ends I think you lose what Formula 1 is all about. This is the pinacle of the sport and has been about protoypes racing one another. Its about individuality and I think that if we see a stock rear end it would lose a lot of what makes Formula 1 what it is

[jab]

But the idea of individuality and uniqueness is in direct oppositon to good racing and lower costs. You can't have it both ways. This is why the majority of series are now single chassis formula. People on the street really don't care how similar the cars are - they just want to see good racing. The cars all look the same to them anyway

There would still be some areas of development to make the cars unique enough but it would be very limited, because the racing is the priority. The majority of the focus should be on the development of the engines and stuff that is relevant to the real world

It should be built on the same rough principles as NASCAR. Without the ridiculous number of overtakes, artificial safety car periods and drivers sticking other drivers in the wall. The guys that run NASCAR understand what the fans want. Problem is if you introduce the word NASCAR to a lot of F1 fans, they turn their noses up, but it's what F1 should be more like

[frostie]

Originally Posted by jab

But the idea of individuality and uniqueness is in direct oppositon to good racing and lower costs. You can't have it both ways. This is why the majority of series are now single chassis formula. People on the street really don't care how similar the cars are - they just want to see good racing. The cars all look the same to them anyway

There would still be some areas of development to make the cars unique enough but it would be very limited, because the racing is the priority. The majority of the focus should be on the development of the engines and stuff that is relevant to the real world

It should be built on the same rough principles as NASCAR. Without the ridiculous number of overtakes, artificial safety car periods and drivers sticking other drivers in the wall. The guys that run NASCAR understand what the fans want. Problem is if you introduce the word NASCAR to a lot of F1 fans, they turn their noses up, but it's what F1 should be more like

You say the idea of individuality and uniqueness is in direct oppositon to good racing and lower costs, but do you not think that the idea of a stock formula in F1 flies in the face of the history and tradition of the sport? Some things are more important than ratings and I believe that the principles of Formula 1 are more important than anything else.

Why should F1 pander to the wants of the masses that will fliter to and from the sport? I enjoy watching NASCAR but if F1 was to become a fully equalised formula I think it would be a disaster.

I'll admit that I am quite a purist when it comes to the sport and I think that if F1 went down that route it would no longer be the pinnacle of the sport, it would merely be another class of racing.

[jab]

Originally Posted by frostie

Why should F1 pander to the wants of the masses that will fliter to and from the sport?

Because they are the ones that really matter

You can play the history and tradition card all you want but it won't matter if the racing is absolutely dire and nobody's watching and teams are pulling out of the sport as a result

It's alright for us to say that because we are hardcore fans but you cannot justify F1's alignment on a very very small minority of people that watch

Why should F1 pander to the masses? Because without them, F1 is dead. If F1 continues to stick to its purist traditions, it'll be under the control of the Arab sheikhs by 2020. Because they'd be the only ones willing to continue spending absurd amounts on something as pointless and boring as F1 in its current form

[frostie]

I know the first race of the season was poor but the principles of F1 stood us pretty well for the last three years when we had great racing and exciting championships. Something might well need to be done (give the new rules a few races before throwing them completly under the bus) but to change the sport on the basis of a single race and to make it a stock formula seems quite kneejerk to me. The masses came to F1 over the last few years and that wasn't with the use of stock chassis, it was because the sport was exciting.

You say that the sport dies if we dont pander to the masses, possibly. But the sport certainly dies if we give up on the defining principle of Formula 1-build your own car

[jab]

Originally Posted by frostie

but to change the sport on the basis of a single race and to make it a stock formula seems quite kneejerk to me.

But this is not just 1 race. This has been the last few years. The FIA have been making changes to the cars to aid overtaking since 1998, and it's got worse since then. Even refuelling was introduced to try and spice up the racing. Overtaking has been declining since the early-mid 80s

Originally Posted by frostie

You say that the sport dies if we dont pander to the masses, possibly. But the sport certainly dies if we give up on the defining principle of Formula 1-build your own car

No it won't. F1 will still be F1 and people will still watch. They don't care how much of the car the teams build. I've had a few people who aren't F1 fans come up to me and say "Why don't they just all have the same car? It would be much fairer"

This whole argument that the sport "dies" if the teams don't build their own cars is a load of nonsense. For a start, we've had customer cars since the beginning of motor racing - they've only been banned in the last 30 years

F1 isn't about building cars. It's about racing cars. Fast ones too

[Last2LiftOff]

Forget it, double post, as you were.

[frostie]

F1 may still be called F1 at that time but do you honestly believe that it will still the sport you fell in love with? What would seperate F1 from F3 except for budgets? I've never seen massive crowds watching F3 or huge television audiences tuning in so I'd say apprently people do care how much of the car is built by the teams.

"Why don't they just all have the same car? It would be much fairer." I dont see why the views of the average person on the street should help formulate the future of a sport. These people don't care about the sport and only want something that will give them a distraction if theres no football on. Why should the sport change to capitilise on the potential for more fans when tv numbers consistently rise anyway?

I agree that in all liklihood something will have to be done in relation to the new rules because the Bahrain race was dull but to make a change of the magnitude you are suggestion seems to be an exceptionally short sighted view

[jab]

Originally Posted by frostie

F1 may still be called F1 at that time but do you honestly believe that it will still the sport you fell in love with?

The F1 I fell in love with died a long time ago and isn't coming back. The world has moved on

The purism argument has a big hole in it - namely that F1 isn't even the purist racing series in the world right now anyway

Originally Posted by frostie

I've never seen massive crowds watching F3 or huge television audiences tuning in so I'd say apprently people do care how much of the car is built by the teams.

That's because it's not F1. It's F3. People watch F1 because it's F1, not because the teams build their own cars

Originally Posted by frostie

I dont see why the views of the average person on the street should help formulate the future of a sport

So you centre it around the views of a couple hundred-thousand people who will tune in even if it's a total procession and would be no great loss in the long run if F1 reformed itself into something slightly different?

You can't be insular and selfish about it. You have to listen to the masses. Because the masses are the ones those that are investing in F1 - the manufacturers, the sponsors and so on - are interested in. Without the masses, no one would invest in the sport and it would collapse

[frostie]

I have no problem with changes but the change that you are suggesting is not 'something slightly different' it is a significant change to the rules of Formula 1. I really don't see how the views of people like your mate can be taken as important by the FIA when television ratings are increasing. What they have been doing has been working and there is no pressing need to change the fabric of F1.

I do think that if after the Chinese GP the racing still hasnt lived up to potential that something will have to be done but I honestly do not see how making the changes that you are describing will make F1 stronger long term. I'd view it as penny wise and pound foolish to be honest. There may be a short term benefit but when you see the TV ratings and the amount of investment in the sport over the last ten years I think the FIA will decide it would be better to roll back to the previous regs with some aero tweaks(the banning of the double diffuser etc) and continue to grow from there rather than risk losing what they have.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by jab

So you centre it around the views of a couple hundred-thousand people who will tune in even if it's a total procession and would be no great loss in the long run if F1 reformed itself into something slightly different?

You can't be insular and selfish about it. You have to listen to the masses. Because the masses are the ones those that are investing in F1 - the manufacturers, the sponsors and so on - are interested in. Without the masses, no one would invest in the sport and it would collapse

This kind of focus-group, lowest-common-denominator thinking is the reason why almost everything is the world is becoming a bland, nondescript mulch.

[ECW Dan Selby]

I see both points, and the key is getting the mix right.

That's much, much easier said than done.

Selby

[jab]

Originally Posted by frostie

I have no problem with changes but the change that you are suggesting is not 'something slightly different'

Well it is only a small difference, because it's still single-seater car racing

Originally Posted by Super Hans

This kind of focus-group, lowest-common-denominator thinking is the reason why almost everything is the world is becoming a bland, nondescript mulch.

Well, I'm not saying bring F1 down to the level of the X Factor, but with the amount of money that is spent in F1, even if you cut it down by as much as I'm suggesting, then it's pretty much inevitable that you have to "pander to the masses" more, because you can't go round spending $x00m a year and then target a small, relatively insignificant group of racing nerds like us. That would be financial suicide

F1 is where it is today because of the masses, primarily because of sponsorship

[frostie]

Originally Posted by jab

Well it is only a small difference, because it's still single-seater car racing

Do you view Indy Cars to be the same as Formula 1 at present? They're both single seater open wheelers but no educated fan would say they are the same thing

Originally Posted by jab

Well, I'm not saying bring F1 down to the level of the X Factor, but with the amount of money that is spent in F1, even if you cut it down by as much as I'm suggesting, then it's pretty much inevitable that you have to "pander to the masses" more, because you can't go round spending $x00m a year and then target a small, relatively insignificant group of racing nerds like us. That would be financial suicide

F1 is where it is today because of the masses, primarily because of sponsorship

Why do you say there is such a small, insignificant group of racing nerds? I think it's pretty clear by the viewing figures that F1 has quite a loyal and large base of fans for Grand Prix.

Obviously you have some that are have exceptional knowledge but there are also many that would never miss a race even though they wouldn't be hardcore fans of other classes of racing. The aim of the commercial rights holder and the FIA should be to ensure they keep these fans and make them, over time, more of a 'racing nerd'.

The more people that follow the sport in that manner, the more that will follow it somewhat indirectly. I'd say that many of us here started watching on our own and got a parent/sibling/cousin/friend into watching. That is generally how a sport grows. People watching as a group with one person to ask questions to and everyone learning. I don't think making intrinsic changes to F1 is a healthy option when the sport is continuing to grow anyway

[tblincoe]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

How much faster was Rosberg than Vettel until Nico caught up to him?

Well that's actually a tough question to answer because Vettel's times were falling precipitously from their high in the laps Nico was closing in on him...