The Future Of F1

Ruslan

Points Scorer
I see things not really changing much for a very, very long time. To the point where if F1 survives at all, it will be a far-removed version of what it is now. I think the cars and the technology have usurped the circuits. Poor Monaco, unable to provide a decent race for these monsters. Same for numerous other circuits. F1 has outgrown its play-spaces, but has nowhere else to play, so tries all sorts of KERS DRS penalties winglet logstraightsintoahairpin nonsense to try and force the issue.

I can't see the current style of circuit, wherever it is, working for F1 cars as they are today. The difference between cornering speeds and top speeds has dramatically reduced, unlike brakes technology and car reliability - hence there's just a minimal braking zone left to overtake. Reducing the quality of the brakes would help but I doubt it will happen. We are reduced to cheering DRS overtakes on 1.5km straights. UGH.

On the other hand, the coverage is amazing. Woooo look at that slo-mo, check out the helicopter zoom, see that again with in-depth analysis. It genuinely makes the show better, and a good thing too. Can you imagine the coverage from the 70s and 80s with the racing from today?? Jesus in a Jordan it doesn't bear thinking about.

There is something still to be thankful for, and we have a great crop of drivers; there's always hope. I don't quite know what for though, and wait with interest.
So the answer is:

1. Legislate narrower cars (easy change)
2. Ban wings (easy change)
3. Require brakes to be steel (easy change)
4. Get rid of DRS (easy change)
5. Impose a budget cap (a little more complicated...but has everyone not gotten the message from Mercedes that $$$ = speed).
 

F1Brits_90

Race Winner
I said few years ago even the ECB realised what a terrible decision they made because they realise its fantastic to have all this money, but viewing figures are down, publicity is down, parcipation is down. like ashes 2005 player of series wins sports personality 2015 player of series isn't even on the shortlist

the rugby/6 nations the only 1 with sense
 

cider_and_toast

Exulted Lord High Moderator of the Apex
Staff member
Premium Contributor
the rugby/6 nations the only 1 with sense
Not exactly. All club rugby is confined to pay per view with a handful of European Cup games on Channel 4.

All England Internationals except the six nations are on Sky. England Rugby tried to sign an exclusive deal for those as well but the other 6 nations teams threatened to boycott the series if they did.

Rugby has now decided they need more games on free to air.
 

F1Brits_90

Race Winner
Not exactly. All club rugby is confined to pay per view with a handful of European Cup games on Channel 4.

All England Internationals except the six nations are on Sky. England Rugby tried to sign an exclusive deal for those as well but the other 6 nations teams threatened to boycott the series if they did.

Rugby has now decided they need more games on free to air.
yeah club rugby not great bar 1 game on per round on channel 4. but what i heard was at that last negotiations sky offered more money but they took lesser bbc/itv to stay on free to air tv
 

Izumi

Points Scorer
Fiat Chrysler, Renault in talks about partnership
Fiat/Nissan/Renault/Mitsubishi - one conglomerate?

If this gets through regulatory gates, I wonder how it affects Ferrari and their (alledged) B-team.
 

Izumi

Points Scorer
GP247
Meanwhile, it has emerged that Ferrari bosses John Elkann and Louis Camilleri have approved an extra budget to completely redesign the front suspension of the SF90, bearing in mind that little has changed on their system for a couple of seasons while Red Bull and Mercedes have evolved their suspension systems.
That of course would not be possible with mandated budget imposed upon teams. Red team would be stuck so to speak, going nowhere. Weaken and uncompetitive Ferrari would be good for some on the grid, so much is obvious, however not good for Maranello and their fans. Disenchantment followed with decline of interest in the sport is just safe prediction of outcome of that mad direction F1 is ready to adopt. Like policy error with tokens in 2014, mandated budget is another lost opportunity and misguided effort to make F1 interesting. Teams need money to fix umplanned errors. That much should not be difficult to understand.
 
Last edited:

Ruslan

Points Scorer
That of course would not be possible with mandated budget imposed upon teams.
Of course it would. They would have to take the money from elsewhere in their budget and move it there. It is called trade-offs. Right now, I don't think Mercedes has had to make any trade-offs in what they spend on for years. Ferrari found that they had to keep increasing their budget to be competitive. I have not seen recent budget figures....but does Ferrari spend as much on F1 as Mercedes? I am not sure they do. I know they did not for the first couple of years of Mercedes dominance.
 

Izumi

Points Scorer
Of course it would. They would have to take the money from elsewhere in their budget and move it there. It is called trade-offs. Right now, I don't think Mercedes has had to make any trade-offs in what they spend on for years. Ferrari found that they had to keep increasing their budget to be competitive. I have not seen recent budget figures....but does Ferrari spend as much on F1 as Mercedes? I am not sure they do. I know they did not for the first couple of years of Mercedes dominance.
Are you suggesting they should pay one credit card balance with another one? Sound that way to me. Big word budget is list of items with estimated values. Nothing else. Contingencies built in are merely for unforeseen expenses, like a driver having an accident or two, or more, but hardly for major development like redesign of suspension. This suggested moving money around is in reality nothing more than short changing one area for benefit of something else. How that can be good?

Proper method of decreasing cost of course was abundantly discussed in the past. It is not however senseless imposition of budget upon teams.
 
Last edited:

Ruslan

Points Scorer
Proper method of decreasing cost of course was abundantly discussed in the past.
It has? What is that...turn F1 into a spec series with extremely tightly regulated rules on development? Perhaps you mean cost control efforts like "tokens."

It is not however senseless imposition of budget upon teams.
Senseless? Makes perfect sense to me. The only arguments I have seen against it is 1) it can't be done (because money and accounting is so hard to police?); 2) and disagreement with it "on principal."

Anyhow, I gather the budget cap it is a done deal and will be in place in 2021. The details and new regulations coming out next month?

It should have been done before the last set of engine regulations. It was to be in place the first year (2014) of the engine regulations, but was scuppered by Bernie at the last minute. Now, after Mercedes looks to win the world championship for seven seasons in the row (as I assume they will take 2020 also)....people I think have finally gotten the message. Just to remind everyone, Mercedes spent something like $700 million on developing the V6 Turbo before 2014. Nobody had ever spent like that in formula one. We saw the results.
 

Izumi

Points Scorer
It has? What is that...turn F1 into a spec series with extremely tightly regulated rules on development? Perhaps you mean cost control efforts like "tokens."
No and No on both counts. Current F1 is overregulated, and overrestricted. Get rid of it. Homologation in first year after introducing new technology in 2014 was absolutely insane. Tokens were just poision cherry on the top of it. All what is needed is to accept technical regulations for a simpler vehicle. Simpler power plant, simpler aerodynamics, etc. Things which relatively speaking do not cost much. Put it differently, if FiA mandates that front wing will be made from 2 x 4, it will be difficult for Mercedes to invest 50 MM into it, regardless how hard they may try.

- however -

If you find that as consequence substantial number of well off teams will depart, then someone will have to make decision whether series is for automakers, or teams I like to call Tier 2. Turning Mercedes into Williams is not going to happen regardless how hard they will try. If automakers want to stay at the edge of technology, hybrids and similar, then either Tier 2 will put up with it, or leave.

There is certain incompatibility, like oil and water, which cannot be overcome in one series. Perhaps solution is to merge both groups into one race, however let automakers run on different platform. RBR can run on Turbo V6 if they want to, despite my believe problem today is not as much with hybrid technology, as fuel saving restriction, DRS, excessive influence of tires, and complexities in aero, lack of proper track testing, etc. There are many more hidden as well.
 
Last edited:

Ruslan

Points Scorer
No and No on both counts. Current F1 is overregulated, and overrestricted. Get rid of it.
On this we agree. Part of the reason I so strongly support a budget cap is that you can remove all the other restrictions (including on testing).

Those restrictions were put in for a reason. In most cases, it was an attempt to control cost without controlling the budget. Control the budget and you can get rid of all the cost control efforts.

If you find that as consequence substantial number of well off teams will depart, then someone will have to make decision whether series is for automakers, or teams I like to call Tier 2.
With the exception of Ferrari, the series pretty much ran without major automakers from 1956 to 1976. That was not a bad 20+ years. On the other hand, it does appear that Renault has dug in for the long run and is not increasing their budget beyond bounds. They appear to be looking out to 2021. Ferrari is never going to leave F1. So the other two big spenders are Mercedes and Red Bull. Red Bull is not an automaker (they don't even make a good drink).
 

Izumi

Points Scorer
On this we agree. Part of the reason I so strongly support a budget cap is that you can remove all the other restrictions (including on testing).

Those restrictions were put in for a reason. In most cases, it was an attempt to control cost without controlling the budget. Control the budget and you can get rid of all the cost control efforts.



With the exception of Ferrari, the series pretty much ran without major automakers from 1956 to 1976. That was not a bad 20+ years. On the other hand, it does appear that Renault has dug in for the long run and is not increasing their budget beyond bounds. They appear to be looking out to 2021. Ferrari is never going to leave F1. So the other two big spenders are Mercedes and Red Bull. Red Bull is not an automaker (they don't even make a good drink).
Ruslan, as a prominent historian surely you must know clocks have no habit going backwards.
 

Ruslan

Points Scorer
Ruslan, as a prominent historian surely you must know clocks have no habit going backwards.
No....but you can learn from history (although the real lesson from history may be that no one ever learns any lessons from history). Modern F1 (1950s) started out very much loaded with factory teams (Alfa, Mercedes, etc.). Eventually, it was taken over by the "garagistas" and survived and prospered. Since then manufacturers have drifted in and occasionally out. F1 with or without Mercedes will still exist and can still grow. I don't see Ferrari, Renault and Honda leaving, and we now have Alfa added back in. I also happen to believe that Mercedes won't leave any time soon. Now, after the budget cap kicks in, if Mercedes find they can no longer win....they might leave. But if the cost of keeping Mercedes in the series is that they must dominate, then the series will be weaker with them in it then with them gone.
 

Izumi

Points Scorer
We have to agree to disagree. What a preposterous cliche I am using here, but I do not know what else I can do to convince you, that organic decrease of cost is best methodology. (Organic denotes simplify car construction; stop building expensive space shuttle Discovery.) Liberty bought this series presumably with some debt, and someone will have to pay. Keeping happy automakers on the inside will be important factor in that puzzle. That's a safe bet.
 

Ruslan

Points Scorer
We have to agree to disagree. What a preposterous cliche I am using here, but I do not know what else I can do to convince you, that organic decrease of cost is best methodology. (Organic denotes simplify car construction; stop building expensive space shuttle Discovery.) Liberty bought this series presumably with some debt, and someone will have to pay. Keeping happy automakers on the inside will be important factor in that puzzle. That's a safe bet.
Well, one of several dozen issues we disagree on. I forget what we do agree on.

On the other hand, I think the U.S. should have another space shuttle program, space stations, and a robust space program.
 
Top Bottom