There are two or three very good discussions going on at the moment surrounding F1. It strikes me that people are approaching change from different perspectives. Agreement on changes to F1 cannot be made without knowing what 'product' we are trying to promote. We have had change after change in F1. A look back shows that some of them support the first option while others support the second option. Has this given F1 an identity crisis? I will start the discussion off.

F1 is very firmly a prototype endurance series. A few hot laps before a fuel-stop is an anathema to a GP series. For too long we have been blinded into believing that we were watching the real thing. Not for me. I am not dewy-eyed about the past. There never was an abundance of overtaking. Although there was more on-track action than we are seeing now. We did always have the possibility of a pass though. A car was not penalised for getting too close to the car in front.

Cars have had year upon year of refinement that have taken them more and more along the point and squirt path. Designers have developed a defence mechanism by developing dirty-air that inhibits passing. There are plenty of people who have a far deeper understanding of the problem than me. My perception is that airflow around cars needs to be simplified so that there is cleaner air for one or two car lengths behind each car.

A halfway house may be to have a one hour sprint series with compulsory pitstops on Saturday and a GP series on Sunday.

It's a television series. Somewhere between a soap opera and a "reality" series.

It should be both - in a sense. I love to watch drivers on the limit, eking every last scrap of performance out of the cars. Do this year's regulations suit that style of driving? Difficult to say, but the drivers have admitted it was easy on Sunday - but also that they were too conservative. Does this mean we will see them push further and harder over the next few races? Again, difficult to say, we will find out.

So, partly, on the driver's front, it should be about going flat out, with a set of regulations that allow for closer racing and the opportunity to overtake. I am not advocating a GP2-style destruction derby (although GP2 is highly entertaining in it's own right), but there should be something done to improve things a bit.

But secondly, for the engineers and the mechanics, it is a bit of an endurance series. It's a test to their skill and knowhow, if they can build a reliable car, great, well done to them, if not, tough luck. Unfortunately the current regulations don't push the boundaries of what the engineers can do, and so reliability is becoming an ever easier form of performance to obtain.

Well 300km race is neither a splint nor endurance.

Drivers capability weighs a lot as they are the heros.



It is here I expect many to say, No, F1 is about team sport, constructors and drivers...

I actually never understood that.

Teams shoudl sit behingd duringthe race, not to send commando to drivers. We want drivers racing.

The grind prix race format progressed from all day trials to 500 mile races to poncy 300 mile races, didn't it? The courses also shortened from epic city to city races, to as little as a few miles?

So the typical format from world championship onwards is most certainly a sprint isn't it? From the world championship era onwards the philosophy has always been to win by 1 second and no more, with the obsessive monitoring of gaps via the pit boards being a constant feature as far as i can note...?


When you go to Singapore where they have to jump over kerbs, thread between walls and there are no tyre wear issues, then they will be able to push on every lap instead of conserve tyres to optimise performance over the whole stint and it will be more interesting to watch. Of course the drivers will not push if it will make them slow and stuff their tyres for later laps, quite obviously!

A Driver's Championship for (theoretically, anyway) the best drivers in the world.

None of the above.

It's a giant advertisement series based on business to business niceties. It is an opportunity for perks for big corporations. I would be surprised to hear what is the percentage of race attendants who are average joe and not big wealthy bob getting a freebie from his firm.

Now if you wanna fix F1, go back to how Indy managed the USGP. Sell tickets to race fans at race fans price. 50EUR max should get me seated at an F1 race.

Oh and while you're at it, fix the show as well:
Take a page from Indycar's rule book, that is steel brakes.
Take a page from Nascar customs book, that is get F1 driver to take part in support series (GP2, Porsche).
Take a page from MotoGP's rule book, that is marginal tires.
And discourage (but don't prohibit) refueling by setting fuel rigs to spit only 2 or 3 liters a sec!

And when something's wrong: fix it. Don't wait. Check again Nascar. For instance, when their big revolutionary COT rear wing is disliked by fans, they just put aside their pride and reintroduce spoilers.

Yep, I agree with that...

So it has become, but that is not the essence of racing.

Business aside, Formula One chose to make no refueling, that is to say that it is looking towards the direction to enhance driver's capability.

The race was boring, because none of the drivers did anything... Hence my opinion. Driver should be doing more instead of pit wall.

A Max 2hr race cannot be an endurance race.

I, along with the 'majority' (I expect) want to see the best drivers in the fastest cars competing in wheel to wheel action where-ever possible with the cars on the limit, and with excitment and tension throughout. Now, that might not be the purists view, but its what the sport needs to survive.

It's a bit like cricket. Do you want Test matches, or 20-20?

...baby don't hurt me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsCXZczTQXo I was thinking the same!

I could add that as a poll option.

It's an 300km race prototype race to test the best engineers and drivers in the world. That has nothing to do with pit stops or overtakning in specific.

ditto.

Not a long distance endurance race sure. But still more of an endurance race than a fuel-sprint race.

None of the above.

F1 should be:

The best cars in the world, operated by the best racing teams, driven by the best drivers on the best circuits, thus ensuring we have the very best motor racing on the planet.

How could this recipe go wrong?

Ooops, I forgot about the other ingredients...

An outgoing administration that had a dubious political agenda, abuse of power to settle personal vendettas; lack of investment in "the show" as commercial rights holders have their hands tied because they paid over the odds; historic races being pushed aside by upstart nations with no heritage or connection to the sport; new teams being selected only if they toe the party line - while better resourced and more experienced candidates are curiously barred from entry; race stewardship that unfairly punished genuine racing incidents, while overlooking or barely scolding favoured transgressors... I could go on

the poll Fu is weak in this thread...

Just under "Professional" Wrestling in terms of a sport im afraid

Not even in theory F1 isn't about drivers... it's about cars.

It's a series for racing teams to demonstrate their technical prowess over a simple sprint racing format. Nothing more nothing less

Sprint (but long enough to make it physically challenging) using high tech prototypes on the edge of legality with radical innovations where the drivers need to maximise their cars strengths and minimise its weaknesses.

Formula 1 is a set of technical regulations for the construction of racing cars.

What is Grand Prix racing is another question entirely.

To me it's Formula racing. The rules (Formula) is laid out, teams build a car to that Formula and then race each other, thus rule changes and such are all part of the sport and have been since inception. The excitement comes from the fact that F1 is supposed to be the top level of motorsport. The cars achieve lap times faster than any other series. The drivers are generally considered to be better than the drivers of other series. The amount of raw speed or pace is what makes it the supposed pinnacle.

What we have today is basically inevitable considering the advancements in aerodynamics and also certain rule changes. What F1 cannot do is change the rules so much in that it stops becoming the fastest series. Right now I think only GP2 cars can get lap times 2nd to an F1 car.

The rules need to keep F1's speed but they also need to improve the competitiveness not only for the fans but for the teams and the sport itself. Right now the idea of using rules to improve close racing is as integral to F1 as it would have been to ban anything else that prevented a car from following you from behind. So for example let's say hypothetically a team used giant magnets (lol) to repel cars behind it, for the FIA to ban such a thing is the same as them banning devices which create turbulent airflow. That's how I see it...

F1 needs to bring back V12's and turbo's, wide 2 metre cars and large tyres and such in order to keep that speed, and then hit hard on aero developments. You can't cut down the aero and leave the engines and tyres as they are, the show would end up being slower than GP2. This is something that is naturally unacceptable to F1.

They need to look at 2012/2013 seasons and seriously think a massive overhaul in rule changes.

No they are not! They are generally considered as a bunch of rich kids playing with their toys but with a couple of top class exceptions like Alonso and Hamilton.

Man, I refuse to vote in this Poll. There's no good options for me. up there it's all about refueling good, anything else bad.

Formula 1 is a set of rules, really, out of which the teams build their designs accordingly and exploit it's loopholes.

Also, as races last under 2 hours, by definition in the FIA, the races are sprints, there isn't "supposed" to be any pitstops other than what is necessary to finish the race as they're sprints.

So, all in all, no good option for me up there

But F1 has NEVER been like that, actually I struggle to think of any form of motor racing which is like that, and actually are there any sports which are that exciting and tense throughout?

F1 should be the best drivers in the best cars driving on the best circuits, but above it has to be a credible sport. that means you will get boring races, but tough.

It should be a 2 hour race series, call it endurance if you want.

But if passing on track is impossible, as it is now, I'd rather have it run as a sprint series as per the past 15 years.

It's a business. The business just so happens to make revenue by racing cars.

I asked a similar question a while back.
http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?show...=116586&hl=

I won't vote - I don't like the options.

I see F1 as the top of motorsport. It isn't a sprint race and it isn't an endurance race. It is the best of the best and has been for a long time. F1 makes an Indycar look like a truck and a Nascar like a tank from World War 2. And that is how it should be.

F1 is making the most of the rules, the car, the team and then it is up to the driver. It is qualifying and it is a race that lasts approximately 2 hours.

It has a historic value that can slip away if they change the rules too much and don't keep a lot of the good old historic circuits. I actually see that as a bigger problem than anything else.

But it's not and never has been. It does have some great drivers and a bunch of pay drivers; so it's really Pro's vs Joe's....and the Pro's have Professional cars/teams too. Like most every professional racing series.

a race series with pretty much no racing, and a relience on politics to keep us interested

A shiny thing, which has somehow managed to make itself look dull with just one race ;) .

Like the old series "Dallas" - a lifestyle with no one working and a reliance of politics to keep us interested....and a bit of sex just in case your interest wanes off.

Yes plently of wealthy wannabes buying Masertis (or Minardis) and going racing...

It there were other drivers who were clearly better than the top drivers (e.g. Senna hypothetically wins the Monaco GP by 1 lap, Haug swoops and Senna quietly slips from HRT to Mercedes mid-season as Schumi's neck turns out to be not up to it ) instead of merely similar (like Heidfeld) then the teams would sign them immediately. So the best drivers are more or less there, probably.

Can you race at a high level in single seaters and achieve results if your rich? Yes you can! The pool of talent in motorsport is tiny and the only way you get noticed is by having massive financial backing. A season in GP2 costs millions. I was speaking to someone involved in driver management not so long ago talking about a very talented driver struggling to find funding.

This is why you seem teams look at karting to sign up talent with McLaren being so prominent. The talent pool is much larger and less fragmented. Every F1 World Champion since Damon Hill has come through CIK Karting. It's the only time a lot of the young talent race each other on the same track at the same time before they fragment and dissipate in the endless stream of car series.

And even in karting drivers are having around £100,000-200,000 spent on them and it's still hard to spot talent.

I know a lad in his 20s, in racing terms a' nobody'. No money and at one point was homeless as he paid for his own racing and went broke. He participated in a driver shootout that he got into and went quicker than many so called 'future stars' who competed in high level cars at the time. Just didn't have the money to compete with these guys.

So F1s driver talent is a minefield. it's hard for teams to know who's good or who's not and that's why we are seeing so many more driver academies etc... even then it's tricky to find real talent.

Not quite. Despite all the pay drivers, the drivers' quality in F1 is nowhere near approached by any other series. The only era when another series (e.g. sports cars) approached the level of F1 was when F1 drivers took part in that series.

You actually mean it should be about drivers..?

Bonneville 1 - Bernie 0

I used to think differently, but now I agree with you. Put a fuel meter, a temp meter and a oil pressure meter in. Use the pit boards. I am tired of hearing "save the engine, save fuel, save everything and let your team mate beat you". Drivers are just puppets, hard to see them as anything else nowadays.

I seem to remember Jimmy Clark racing Lotus Cortinas and Graham Hill -did he also drive them or was it the Mk2 Jags - I can't remember whether it was on the same day as the Grand Prix

Can anyone who watched F1 during the glory years of the 80s (or other glory years!) remember a time when every GP was an exciting battle? I remember many races in '96 and '97 being as good as I was looking forward to regularly, but only about one race in every 4 or 5.

Every time Gilles stepped into the car there was excitement in the air.

How would you measure this? If you think the quality of a series is whether F1 drivers compete than you can go all the way to karting to find F1 drivers still racing. Schumacher raced karts all last year even competing in a top international event (along with Beumi and Piquet) where he was beaten quite comfortably by several professional kart drivers.

I was there and to be honest all the F1 drivers were beaten pretty easily. Schumacher drove like a complete nutjob and did a fantastic job to finish 7th (he got some major luck tho throughout the weekend with a ton of drivers DNFing). I saw him try to run wide some poor kid into the wall. We knew then F1 was on the cards again.. the fire was still there. My point is F1 drivers aren't super humans like we are led to believe. Most would struggle to win races at any level. From my experience of watching drivers up close we have about 7-9 truly exceptional drivers in F1. Motorsport is just so expensive talent just gets swept away in the sea of debt and broken dreams.

I am a massive motorsport fan so it's great to learn about the reality of the sport we follow and all it's different nuances and classes and variations. might open your eyes a bit if some of you did the same

Ayrton Senna said the best driver in the world was Mike Wilson.

What was Wilson's F1 record again?

That may have been Terry Fullerton not Mike Wilson who he referenced. Though there is an arguments he's referenced both.

for anyone who doesn't know both fantastic drivers

Mike Wilson - 6x World Karting Champion
Terry Fullerton - 1x or 2x World Karting Champ (Senna's team mate back in the day )

anyway back on topic guys This is about F1

Point is, the best driver is picking crops in outter Mongolia or is 6'6" and no good at Basketball/Volleyball.

Why is it that the best driver has to be under 5'10"? Bernd Schnider was a hell of a driver. Hans Stuck as well.

WRC drivers are easily arguably better all round drivers.

Sprint cars drivers (it could easily be argued) have better car control than F1 drivers. Sprint Car driver having fun

Well it's not quite like that because F1 drivers will probably race better drivers than them as they move through the ranks but they just have the financial might to punch their way through. That's the brutal truth and quite unique to motorsport.

When you watch F1 it's so easy to just fall into line with the same old "best 20 odd drivers in the world" because they are there racing in front of your eyes. You just go with it and don't question it because unless your one of the few involved there is not point. It's easier to go along with the show. But a sneek peak behind the curtain and it's a world of families in debt, massively talented drivers left out in the cold and broke etc... etc... It's an extremely harsh world and we just don't see it (because of course that doesn't sell magazines )

You mean better drivers that are "suited to the necessary physical attributes required for an F1 driver". Hans Stuck was arguably a better driver than most on the grid; Scheider same. Many driver's at your local roundy-round are as good or better than many F1 drivers.

Why is it that f1 drivers are thought (mistakenly) to be the best? because of F1 supposedly being the (self-annoited) Pinnacle of Motorsport that's why. It's total and complete bullshit. Racing drivers all have attributes that are their make up; Concentration, raw talent, tech ability, charisma, aggression, cerebral ability, etc etc etc... is anyone really daft enough to think that Vatanen, Loeb, Ernhardt, to name just a few are not as well equipped as any driver on the F1 grid

What is F1 to you?

A boring procession..arrogance..and inbred drawfs..paying huge sums to guide computer controlled billboards for the super rich..
I want my Grand Prix back..and I'm afraid it's lost forever..