NO PITS STOPS.


Make a rule where there's passing (preferably for the lead)..and it's actually fun to watch.

That sounds like something my wife would say. Do you root for the football team with the nicest color combination on their uniform?

Porsche has had active aero on the 911 since the 964. Many modern cars, and even pickup trucks, now use active aero such as grille flaps to control the balance of drag vs cooling airflow. I can't say I understand the hatred on this thread for aerodynamics.....maybe because you guys don't like the way the cars look? Sorry, but the beautiful wingless designs of the 1950s were SLOW by modern standards.

I agree with Sammy. Let the damn things go as fast as the engineers can make them. Why are you guys concerned about the drivers? They won't field a car that kills the driver, that would be a really poor investment. Drivers in g-suits, now THAT would be cool. Team budgets - who gives a damn? It's not as if Joe Bob the mechanic is hooking up his 5th wheel and fielding an F1 team. I say let them spend all they want. If we end up with the Space Shuttle with wheels blasting around the track at 400 MPH, that sounds pretty damn awesome to me.

This thread is funny, because it's largely a bunch of people lamenting about "the good old days" of F1. Probably the same guys that laugh at NASCAR for using carburetors and pushrod engines. But F1 would be AWESOME if we removed all of the technology that makes the cars go fast. Huh?

Only if it makes their butts look good.

Sounds like something a blind man would say.

With the exception of the Mercedes and maybe the Red Bull, this year's noses look terrible. Toro Rosso's got a personal massager on the front of their car, and Caterham seem to have tried to make a point by having the ugliest nose on the grid.

And the funny part is that they aren't even safer like they thought- the cars just submarine now.

That sounds great but it just doesnt work. Not enough competitive cars as it is. No easy answer but the series needs to be accessible enough that teams want to join and can actually be competitive, at least near the middle. It should never be easy, just possible. That should keep innovation alive and fresh faces trying to make it work.

A simple change that would seem to increase the competitiveness is to increase the fuel flow rate. I dont like the limitation but if it's not going away it needs to be raised.

I would like to see more tire options. Make tire strategy more important. Maybe select tires with a bigger wear delta for each race. I like the It makes sense to require a pit stop.

You can always spend more money to figure out ways around the rules and find the gray areas. You want rules to try and make a fairly even playing field, not ensure that people save money. That never works because if you win you make more money. So some will always be willing to spend more money to make that money.

I'm all for the hybrid power units and regenerative braking. That does end up in cars. And I'm not sure I'm worried about traction control and whatnot. The driver still has to steer the car and decide when/how to make moves. Why not use the technology to give them the best chance to do that?

Fast forward 30 years from now. The cars will be autonomous and will be either run totally by AI (essentially your "drivers" will be branded algorithms), or the drivers will be remote, driving via head mount display and virtual cockpit, making it so you'll never have a driver fatality again.

No more hydrocarbon fuels. Clearly the hydrocarbon fuels are evil and destroying the planet. And for what? a rich-mans corp-sponsored sport?

F1 cars should be powered by the wind and PV only . .maybe allow some shade-grown, fair-trade batteries.

really, do I need the green text there? :cool:

Based on the data I could find online, it looks like every team spent in excess of $87M in 2013, with Ferrari spending about $426M. It's not a sport for the common man, and the major OEMs are always going to have more, irregardless of caps. Capping the internal spending of a major company from the outside is damn near impossible, there's a million ways to hide spending such that they meet the rules. I understand the motivation, but I don't see it as being very pragmatic.

Simplification of the rules would also help. The more rules, the harder the teams have to work to find ways to circumvent them.

I completely agree. Not sure the cap is the answer, but their needs to be a way to keep teams interested and able to compete.

I like the idea of more testing too, maybe more for newer teams. Seems like the team with the best sim is at a huge advantage.

I think Formula 1 exists to provide an excellent advertising opportunity for sponsors. That is true for all professional racing.

I have been following F1 at some level since the mid-to-late 60's, although in those early days most of my connection was via infrequent broadcasts of races on programs like ABC Wide World of Sports.

I have not read the rules, but I have some impressions and some comments:

1. Most folks would be very surprised at the level of technology in NASCAR. It just isn't as obvious as in F1.

2. Professional racing like F1 needs to cater to the audiences defined by interested advertisers/sponsors. The spectacle needs to gain and keep viewers/followers aligned with the needs/desires of these advertisers/sponsors. The rules help shape the spectacle.

3. We have seen many technological advances in professional racing in its various forms in the past several decades. Many of these advances have come with growing costs.

I remember when the first water-cooled 911s showed up for pro racing-- several of my local friends/contacts supported/ran some of those early cars. Compare those cars and budgets to what PAG and PMNA are spending today for the 991 based car. Imagine the increases in budget through the years of FLM running 911s.

Increases in costs just go with the territory in my opinion. To me, the best folks to decide how to optimize the cost curve shape are the insiders. They have to manage all of the economic factors.

4. I don't mind hybrid power plants in F1, but I would prefer if they weren't mandated. I suspect that there is survey data somewhere that says that this mandated approach is good for target audiences, but I am not part of the target.

5. I think they are constantly working on the tire equation in terms of performance versus wear, but it is apparently very challenging to get it nailed.

6. Passing adds drama, but balanced with everything else, its hard to ensure passing is possible at a level that many folks apparently want to see. So they have DRS, which I think has helped, and they have done a number of other things. There is a bit of a teeter totter when it comes to this high level of performance capability and passing (due to aero).

7. I am not a big fan of the sound of today's engines compared to previous generations, and I think F1 is trying to deal with that. Higher rpms might likely help, and if all that is in the way is fuel flow, sounds easy. But if those rpms create greater costs due to risks and wear, and those costs cannot be supported in the business spreadsheets, then so be it.

8. I think F1 should be broadcast in what ever way it needs to so business goals are achieved/exceeded.

Professional racing like F1 is an entertainment business and competes on that basis. There are many possible recipes. Rules shape the show.

1) Flat bottom between centerline of front and rear axle
2) Single element front & rear wings
3) Steel brakes-increasing braking distance equals more passing.
4) Everything else - open.

The drum solo????

This is true for every single show broadcast on TV or radio. All the professional "sports" like NBA, NFL, NHL, and so on only exist to sell tickets to the fans and get the broadcast money.

F1 needs to make the race exciting by having a level playing field. The last 4 years of F1 got boring when Vettle and Red Bull were so dominate. Now Mercedes has the clear lead. The fans want to see the best drivers in the best cars racing head to head and passing each other in the fight for the lead.

Passive, but stationary:
-What about suspension arms with a wing shape which create downforce when the suspension is compressed?
-What about intake/exhaust/cooling routing similar to the Chaparral effect?
-What about variable ride-height controlled by airspeed.

Really? F1 isn't a fashion show or an art exhibit. Its a contest of the best driver, team strategy and machine combination. Maybe you'd like to award pole position to the prettiest paint job? Or even better, let's give bonus points for the Concours d'elegance winner before the start of the race. :rolleyes:

I grant you that some of the newer race machines are ugly. The Porsche 919 is butt-ugly but
"form follow function"

Electric cars with nuclear reactors! Why should the drivers be the only ones to suffer in an accident? :p

But seriously, if they went truly unlimited, wouldn't we be looking at a field of gas turbine engines? Is that what we want to see and hear?

I know you jest... but what if they did? Magnetic brakes? Hmmmmm?

No, you are wrong. Form follows the rules, now more than ever. The rules dictate the shape and the current shape is not very pleasing.