The Pinacle no longer...last season before I stop watching I fear.

[opinionated ow]

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns21039.html

My reactions to this:
-18k RPM limit is utter ********. This is Formula One, there shouldn't be any rev limit on the engines! 19k was bad enough
-Banning wind tunnel testing is ********. What happens when someone finds a fundamental flaw in their car and needs to rectify it? Why are there limits on Formula one! Its not bloody GP2!
-Manpower at circuits is the team's responsibility. FIA should have no say in it whatsoever!
-I can answer your market research FIA...Changing to medals, changing qualifying, the FANS are not interested!
-Mandated transmission are utter ********! This is not a spec series, this is Formula One! Build or buy a gearbox, its your choice. And you are supposed to be able to choose which gearbox you use! This is NOT GP2!
-Competitive elements of chassis? They are all! Give me a break...I'm not interested in watching GP1. And neither are the fans in the trees at Monza, the brave souls who go to Spa, the fans in Montreal (oh...hold on), the ones who fill the Nuburgring. None of them are interested in a spec series!
-Limiting factories and shaker rigs? Are they ****ing kidding me? Since when has the FIA had the right to dictate how a team builds and tests their cars?
-Standard KERS? KERS is unnecessary in the first place. But standardise? WTF!

I've had it..I'm watching 2009. But unless ALL of these decisions are reversed, I'm out. I'll stick to my Formula 3 any downloadable sportscar racing AND Srintcars, Midgets, Dirt Modifieds and Supermodifieds. At least the rules are OPEN, you can choose your chassis, your engine, your gearbox (if it has one!), your tyres in most cases AND your facilities!

[Methanolandbrats]

Yup, it's heading towards a spec *****ox series that is also "green".:yuck:

[Andrew Longman]

I was accepting of spec cars in Champcar because I understood the sport wasn't generating enough value to support competitive innovation -- thanks to the grandson

I am not accepting of spec cars in ICS because, first they are butt ugly and slow and second because the grandson destroyed the value that made competitive innovation possible.

I will not accept spec cars in F1 because, at least at the moment, F1 is creating more than enough value to support innovation... except it is not being spent on that. It's going to to Max and Bernie.

If they go through with this they will have about the same amount of innovation and variation as NASCAR. Max should note that the CoT has helped remove an awful lot of fan interest and not a lot of cost.

[ilferrari]

It's a good thing Mosley never made it as a politician, he would put income tax at over 50% and run the economy by decree.

[Methanolandbrats]

Have they cut out friday practice, shortened qualies and raised ticket prices yet?

[Insomniac]

I personally am in favor of any aero limits. Wind tunnel bans I favor. Getting rid of winglets. I'd love to see the focus shifted back to the mechanical side. I've said it many times. Aero (wind tunnels and computers) ruined OWR. The car should not stick to the entire track so easily.

[STD]

Clueless rule makers ruined most of all the forms of auto racing.

[FTG]

If you guys are fans of engineering innovation why don't you head out to the salt flats? If you want to see people pissing away large amounts of money, follow politics. I want to know which driver brakes latest, something that has been irrelevant for years because the team with the $100 million aero advantage is lapping the field. ("A pit stop is coming up in 10 laps, Will a 25 second lead be enough?" Doesn't interest me.)

[Andrew Longman]

If you guys are fans of engineering innovation why don't you head out to the salt flats? If you want to see people pissing away large amounts of money, follow politics. I want to know which driver brakes latest, something that has been irrelevant for years because the team with the $100 million aero advantage is lapping the field. ("A pit stop is coming up in 10 laps, Will a 25 second lead be enough?" Doesn't interest me.)

I've always thought the sport was not as much about the driver as about the sport. To compete requires pulling together the resources to assemble a team (which includes the driver) and managing them better than the competition to achieve greater victory.

I am almost impressed as much by the ability to create hundreds of millions in funding as I am by the on track skill of the driver but neither are more impressive to me than the ability to get all of it, the funding, engineering, strategy, teamwork, and yes driving right. THAT is the stuff of champions at any level of the sport.

F1 just dialed it up the most.

I'm all in favor of some controls. F1 aero rules haven't served the sport for a while. But all they had to do was reign in the size and number of wing elements and perhaps out law do dads and things would have been greatly improved.

[Rogue Leader]

Refueling ban... UGH

[STD]

Auto racing equals both a car and a driver. Both should be at the highest degree on the very thin edge and tested over the race distance. Anything else might as well have training wheels.
Maybe pedal cars would lend better for a pure athletic event.

Trying to enforce parity doesn't interest me. It never works as the teams with the know how continue at the front of the grid. Just in a boring artificial manner vs. a team winning by a lap because it has the better total package and is creative. (Those teams also continue to get the sponsorship deals either way.) The search for parity within spec rules provides no way to ever catch up. I'll take a Colin Chapman, Jim Hall type of leap forward anyday.
But what the hell, going back to unreliable huge drum brakes or earlier methods of braking might be a hoot. I want to see the squirm factor when the pedal goes to the floor. :shakehead :rolleyes:

Kers is a joke, an expensive one.

The teams will still find ways to spend their money.

I also could care less about refueling in F1. It has brought down the value of the driver's skill/input to the end results. One should be able to manage a changing car for a 200 mile race distance. The crew has the time before the start to work with the driver to get the car set up right and leave it to the driver to bring home.

[Methanolandbrats]

The best formula was 1000 HP turbos, no refueling and big sticky tires.

[JohnHKart]

It's a good thing Mosley never made it as a politician, he would put income tax at over 50% and run the economy by decree.

Yeah and we'd also have to salute and say Heil Mosley!

John

[pchall]

Bonneville is a timing event, not racing. It is kind of fun to see and read about, but I do expect a variety of cars in a class on the track together...


If you guys are fans of engineering innovation why don't you head out to the salt flats? If you want to see people pissing away large amounts of money, follow politics. I want to know which driver brakes latest, something that has been irrelevant for years because the team with the $100 million aero advantage is lapping the field. ("A pit stop is coming up in 10 laps, Will a 25 second lead be enough?" Doesn't interest me.)

[73B]

It is still the pinnacle of motorsport.

This past year had the most exciting racing in decades, right down to the last corner of the last lap.

Sure, Ferrari's dominance at the turn of the century was incredible, even awe inspiring, but the most exciting races were the ones where Schumacher let Barrichello win.

The pendulum had swung too far. The increases in spending were not sustainable... especially when the quality of the racing was turning fans (aka revenue) off.

I'm glad they finally have come to their senses.

[opinionated ow]

It is still the pinnacle of motorsport.

This past year had the most exciting racing in decades, right down to the last corner of the last lap.

Sure, Ferrari's dominance at the turn of the century was incredible, even awe inspiring, but the most exciting races were the ones where Schumacher let Barrichello win.

The pendulum had swung too far. The increases in spending were not sustainable... especially when the quality of the racing was turning fans (aka revenue) off.

I'm glad they finally have come to their senses.

You're on your own mate....

[ilferrari]

I personally am in favor of any aero limits. Wind tunnel bans I favor. Getting rid of winglets. I'd love to see the focus shifted back to the mechanical side. I've said it many times. Aero (wind tunnels and computers) ruined OWR. The car should not stick to the entire track so easily.

There are plenty of racing series that get their grip from the tire only, such as NASCAR and WTCC. Sure they can race and slide around easier, but the cars are not nearly as challenging to drive. The best cars I can think of were the F1 cars of early 1994, such as the FW16. The rear end grip was dependent on the aero effect of the flat bottom and diffuser, and that was sensitive to pitch and all sorts of things.

[Insomniac]

There are plenty of racing series that get their grip from the tire only, such as NASCAR and WTCC. Sure they can race and slide around easier, but the cars are not nearly as challenging to drive. The best cars I can think of were the F1 cars of early 1994, such as the FW16. The rear end grip was dependent on the aero effect of the flat bottom and diffuser, and that was sensitive to pitch and all sorts of things.

OWR cars inherently have a lot more aero grip than what you are talking about. :yuck: to compare F1 to those. They're so different. I'm just talking about a focus back on tires, engines and transmissions. We're at a point where a car can be designed easily to have enough aero grip. Let the rest be mechanical so it's somewhat of a challenge to go around the track.

[opinionated ow]

OWR cars inherently have a lot more aero grip than what you are talking about. :yuck: to compare F1 to those. They're so different. I'm just talking about a focus back on tires, engines and transmissions. We're at a point where a car can be designed easily to have enough aero grip. Let the rest be mechanical so it's somewhat of a challenge to go around the track.

What I think they need to do, is allow big engines again so that the money is not being spent on idiotic minute areas. Give them 3L, slicks, maximum wing sizes and some safety requirements, oh and a requirement for the engine to burn petrol (not bloody diesel!) and let them play. get rid of the common stuff. OPEN IT BACK UP and then ironically costs will go down because the development will be on big stuff which makes bigger differences and is easier to do.

[Insomniac]

What I think they need to do, is allow big engines again so that the money is not being spent on idiotic minute areas. Give them 3L, slicks, maximum wing sizes and some safety requirements, oh and a requirement for the engine to burn petrol (not bloody diesel!) and let them play. get rid of the common stuff. OPEN IT BACK UP and then ironically costs will go down because the development will be on big stuff which makes bigger differences and is easier to do.

I don't really know if there is any way to limit costs without limiting rules. The goal is to win and if throwing money at whatever they can, whether it's aero, dynos, people, etc. they will spend it if possible. I'd just rather see it spent anywhere besides aero. They need a very simple and limited aero formula that just generates some down force. The majority should be generated by the body, little on the wings.

To me, it seems pretty dumb to put huge shackles on the main teams. The real manufacturers are the people that spend the money and have the most fans. If you're going to limit each team to 2 cars, driving away manufacturers is dumb. If you want to add more teams, lowering costs likely won't do it. Allow customer cars. Spread the costs out over a larger grid. Let Ferrari spend $400M to have 4 cars and 6 engines out on track instead of 2 cars and 2 engines.

[RTKar]

In these economic times it seems it's either death by uncontrolled costs or virtual death by homogenization...take your pick. What I see happening is at some point, ironically, is a CART like model but with much better management. A template of chassis and engine that can be played with. The cost of engineering talent (& drivers) my rise but rolling stock will be cheaper.

[opinionated ow]

I don't really know if there is any way to limit costs without limiting rules. The goal is to win and if throwing money at whatever they can, whether it's aero, dynos, people, etc. they will spend it if possible. I'd just rather see it spent anywhere besides aero. They need a very simple and limited aero formula that just generates some down force. The majority should be generated by the body, little on the wings.

To me, it seems pretty dumb to put huge shackles on the main teams. The real manufacturers are the people that spend the money and have the most fans. If you're going to limit each team to 2 cars, driving away manufacturers is dumb. If you want to add more teams, lowering costs likely won't do it. Allow customer cars. Spread the costs out over a larger grid. Let Ferrari spend $400M to have 4 cars and 6 engines out on track instead of 2 cars and 2 engines.

Sorry to be a PITA, but they had 2 cars and 6 engines :p

Customer cars were an integral of formula one for most of its lifetime, and to allow them again is fair game. Customer cars won't ever have the same go fast bits as the factory cars do...

[Insomniac]

Sorry to be a PITA, but they had 2 cars and 6 engines :p

Customer cars were an integral of formula one for most of its lifetime, and to allow them again is fair game. Customer cars won't ever have the same go fast bits as the factory cars do...

Yeah. I figured selling the car would net more than engines do. I also figured you'd get a variety as well.

I didn't really start paying attention to F1 until sometime in the 2000s, so I don't know much about tradition, but it would be nice if they took the current aero rules, opened up the engines again and allowed for customer cars and engines. That additional variety in the field would allow for more competition and (hopefully) more teams.

But, it has to be imperative that the aero not be "good" enough. Otherwise you end up with everyone buying the same customer car. There need to be design trade-offs. Right now, the trade-offs amount to nothing.

[oddlycalm]

I didn't really start paying attention to F1 until sometime in the 2000s, so I don't know much about tradition
F1 has been all over the map since I started following it in the early 60's, so when people talk about tradition you need to take it with a grain of salt. There was an era when almost the entire grid had Cosworth engines, times when customer cars were allowed, times when they weren't allowed, etc., etc.

The FIA, and FISA before it, has had a procession of world class wankers presiding over F1 and all have felt the need to change the specs season by season. When I started watching the cars were tiny and had 1.5L NA engines that were in the 150-180hp range and around half the engines in the grid were supplied by UK lift truck mfg. Conventry Climax. :gomer: Unlikely that's what people mean with they refer to tradition... :laugh:

oc

[emjaya]

F1 has been all over the map since I started following it in the early 60's, so when people talk about tradition you need to take it with a grain of salt. There was an era when almost the entire grid had Cosworth engines, times when customer cars were allowed, times when they weren't allowed, etc., etc.

The FIA, and FISA before it, has had a procession of world class wankers presiding over F1 and all have felt the need to change the specs season by season. When I started watching the cars were tiny and had 1.5L NA engines that were in the 150-180hp range and around half the engines in the grid were supplied by UK lift truck mfg. Conventry Climax. :gomer: Unlikely that's what people mean with they refer to tradition... :laugh:

oc

When you look at the 1.5l era between 61/65, think of what came out of it. Some of the biggest names in F1 started their careers, or made their name, as drivers or constructors, or both.

It seems to me the best years in F1 are when an of-the-shelf engine, that is competitive, is available: the Bristol 2l in the early fifties, the Coventry Climax in the early sixties, the Cosworth DFV during the late sixties and though the seventies.

[oddlycalm]

When you look at the 1.5l era between 61/65, think of what came out of it. Some of the biggest names in F1 started their careers, or made their name, as drivers or constructors, or both.

It seems to me the best years in F1 are when an of-the-shelf engine, that is competitive, is available: the Bristol 2l in the early fifties, the Coventry Climax in the early sixties, the Cosworth DFV during the late sixties and though the seventies.

Agreed, similar to what it was in Champ cars with the Offie and then the Cosworth. I like the different periods for different reasons, but can say that I've like them all.

Whatever happens you can bet we haven't seen the end of the rush to save money in F1. This week Santander and Royal Bank of Scotland to massive hits from the latest financial fraud. It's not in conceivable that they could not be in a position to honor their contracts leaving two teams in a bad way.

oc