as per MW.

I agree. No refuelling was hopeless, its going to be a procession this year with no overtaking and cars only passed if, its one of the new teams, or on lap 1 or if the car breaks down.

I was so excited this year, with 4 world champs in top cars. However, its all about qualifying high and then making it through lap 1. After that you just coast to the finish.

MW - need to do a lot better in Q3. Especially if you are leaving it to one run!!

One word on Bahrain GP - BORING!

They need harder tyres, maybe it will work better in cooler conditions.

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

They look to be considering mandatory 2 pitstops after 3 or 4 races if things don't improve..

That wont be any improvement.... everyone will pit in the last 10 laps for the soft tyres.... nothing will change, except webber will lose a few more spots because of other drivers holding him in pit lane.

A good start to fixing F1 would be to give the teams the engines they need, this 8 engine limit thing is just silly and it kinda is spoiling the races, i hate it when you hear that the drivers are saving their engine for the next race.

Racing should be where you can push your car and rev it hard to catch someone in front of you not just cruise along saving your engine, stupid engine limit is spoiling good F1 racing.

The engine limit rule is one of the worst rules you could ever bring into any motorsport category!!!

---

----Webber versus Alonso----



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 16/03/2010 03:25 by Whitey*~@.

It's a bit ironic but the enemy here is technology. Years ago tyres wouldn't last the way they do now. As for aero, well that's been discussed at length.

What's the solution? Who knows? The current format from the general concensus is pretty crap.

Technology is increasing exponentially. You could probably do the whole race without pitting if that was allowed (on the harder tyre) Fuel economy is only going to get better as teams strive to be lighter off the line.

It is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport so we want to see the best technology,......but that's whats hindering the actual racing.

Quote:

willbur
What's the solution? Who knows?

They need to scrap the 8 engine limit rule and let the drivers be able to use their engines to race other cars rather than cruising around saving their engine for the next race.

There are 19 races this year and the drivers are limited to just 8 engines before they get a penalty, that is a joke, they should make the rule at least 1 engine per race, if there is 19 races each driver should get 19 engines before they get any penalty.

Do we want Formula 1 to be drive conservative to save engines or do we want these guys to race?

---

----Webber versus Alonso----



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 16/03/2010 05:35 by Whitey*~@.

A good start would be taking to the aero rules with a pair of scissors.

---

...on Earth, as it is in Queensland

Quote:

Jock 2009
A good start would be taking to the aero rules with a pair of scissors.

I agree 100%. Flat bottoms, simple diffusers, single element wings, no bargeboards, no winglets, no engine fins...that would be a start.

I also think 2 manditory stops is a good solution *For Now*...too late for radical aero or technical changes, but giving the drivers some scope to actually use the tyres to race, rather than nurse them for 60-75% race distance will mean they can lean on them a bit.

that was the whole reason why Vettel couldn;t defend against the Ferraris and LH, but could against Britney. There was only a few laps to go by then, so not as risky to use the tyres more, so he could push in the turns to try and keep him behind. Not an option with 15 - 20 laps to go, or they would eb shot before the end and he would have faded heaps worse than he did.

I don't get the diffuser hate to be honest, as Newey said, adding another deck to the diffusers hasn't made it harder to overtake. Upperbody airflow is a lot more effected by dirty air than underbody.

The tyres are epically too soft, they weren't cruising because of the engine rule, but because of the tyres.

Though, they should've upped the engine quota to 9 or 10 this year just for obvious reasons.

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

Quote:

Whitey*~@
Do we want Formula 1 to be drive conservative to save engines or do we want these guys to race?

I don't beleive the engines are the problem. If they had the power to overtake, they would do it. If a car is infront, and its storming off into the distance.. is that more exciting? I dont mind that they conserve their engines. If all the teams had the money... then engine development would really be kicking along. (you forgot to complain about the limiting of the revs... etc)

The problem is that there is no overtaking. Cars cannot get near other cars without getting some sort of penalty to their speed making it difficult to get the speed to overtake. Maybe there is a way to change the front wing to compensate when in dirty air, and use the slipstream to get past other cars? It would probably require some sort of user controlled movable wings.

No Refueling is also a problem. This has taken away all the tactics that could be employed during the race. It could still became predictable, but there were still unknown factors involved that created doubt about how full/empty they each were. Make them use a fuel tank that only lasts 1/3 of the race.

Changes to the back of the car, that improve the airflow behind the car, not muddy it up.

But i think we are dreaming. if things are opened to development everywhere, then rich will get faster, and the poor will get lapped.

But General why do i hear talk over the radios from team to driver telling them to back off and save the engine, limiting of the engine revs kinda comes under the same category as limiting the engines, because limiting the engines sometimes means in races they have to limit the engine revs even more.

I am curious does the Indy car series in America have a engine limit rule like only 8 engines per season before you get a penalty?

---

----Webber versus Alonso----

Whitey, Because they cannot overtake. Ferrari's engines were overheating when they spent time near vettel. They couldn't stay there, and not overtake, and let the engines burnout during the race

I see what you are saying General, but i still think the 8 engine limit for the season does handicap drivers throughout the season and at some stages in some races does not let the drivers do full on racing and thrashing their cars, i like drivers driving the wheels off their cars, was there a 8 engine limit rule in the Prost / Senna era?....is there a 8 engine limit rule in Indy cars?

Was there a 8 engine limit rule in the Prost / Senna era?....is there a 8 engine limit rule in Indy cars?

I don't know the answer to the two questions above, can anyone answer them?

---

----Webber versus Alonso----



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 16/03/2010 07:12 by Whitey*~@.

There probably was not. there was probably no testing limit or engine rev limit or bodywork (shape of car, wings etc).

I don't know the answer either.

I think there is a concensus....

F1 is getting boring

Hey Loud, for the record, both me and Martin Whitmarsh say the tyres are too hard. I think you have it @#$%& about.

Softer tyres that well and truly went off are what the doctor orders. Martin says he wants "racier" tyres.

---

That's just going to make the drivers try and conserve them more, while I can see an arguement for a tyre going off after 3 laps being somewhat entertaining, I think we've gone okay while I've been watching F1 as long as they have a tyre they can race on.

I just found it completely boring because no one was trying, if you have a harder tyre that the drivers know will last then we'll actually have a race. On the weekend, how was Mark supposed to pressure Michael or Jenson into a mistake while they're driving 2 seconds a lap slower than their limit?

If you make them a little bit softer the problem will be worse, if you make them outrageously soft then we're leaving what I feel is F1 territory and may as well put shortcuts and sprinklers. Plus, what tyre manufacturer is going to want to have their brand name associated with a tyre that can't last 5 laps?

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

I initialy called for softer tyres after the race.
On reflection, Loud maybe right. I few times I heard it said in the telecast that loosing your aero in someone elses wake just screwed the front tyres. So they couldnt afford to get within striking distance of the car infront. They may get racier if the fear of ruining the tyres isnt so great.

---

They need to fix the whole slipstreaming issue. They have tried, but not done enough. That and a reduction in braking power, so as to encourage more passing under breaks.

God what a boring race that was, i turned off with 10 laps to go.

seeing obviously faster cars unable to overtake for another season is just insane.The amount of dirty air coming off the cars seems to get worse with each season.These cars are just way to dependent on aero.

what was the point of the FIA biggest every survey???...

everyone wanted refueling back after the last time it went.

I say bring back refueling and bring back the 1 lap shootout.

Bring on the moto GP season please...!!

bring back senna

next race might be a race to see how long i stay interested

Quote:

bored as bat @#$%&
everyone wanted refueling back after the last time it went.

When was that, exactly?

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

I now don't know what to think. Is this the way things are going to be for the future of F1 racing?

As a spectator, i want a spectacle. I want to see races being contested. I want to see gutsy moves. I want to have uncertainty. I want to not know the results of races once qualifying is finished.

However, I think that there are three main factors that are shaping F1... in order of importance.
1. Safety.
2. Sustainability.
3. Spectacle.

1. I do not begrudge them this. The drivers, the pit crew, the race wardens (or whatever they are called), the spectators all need to be kept safe. (I'm sure that liabilities and insurance costs would all impact the second point).

Safety, i think, affects the shape of the tracks (space to run off, or reduce impacts), the shape of the cars (The drivers seat construction. That bits dont fall off cars.).
Refueling is a safety issue. Banning it takes away all the risks of the midrace refueling process. (we all saw the issue with fueling rigs, and pit lane fires, etc) However, I thought that, with all the safety gear that people wear, that the risks were lowered enough.

2. Sustainability of F1, is the sustainability of the F1 teams. What good is F1 with only 4 or 5 teams racing? I love the idea of people developing faster and faster engines with all sorts of gizmos and gadgets to allow cars to get faster and faster. Now, maybe safety is the reason for the restrictions of some of the things (like turbo) but some things like reducing testing days, reducing engines and engine development, etc... are purely financial. These can't last forever though, but are likely necessary in these times.

3. Spectacle is whatever is left over from the above two. Each restriction they seem to add from 1 and 2 seem to take away from 3. We can whine all we like about our race getting boring, but when you look at the big picture, its hard to argue with the changes.


I do think refueling needs to be allowed... I have done some research, and got the following regarding refueling changes in 1994

WIKI: History_of_Formula_One_regulations

Quote:

From our friendWIKI: History_of_Formula_One_regulations
1984
In race refuelling outlawed, fuel tank required to be in centre of car

1994
Mid race refueling allowed for the first time since 1983[/url]

This link says that "mid-race re-
fueling was inexplicably reintroduced for the 1994 season".
This link claims the refueling was brought back to control the fast times of williams.

Did people actual refuel before 1984 though? I'm guessing it was a turbo thing, to stop them running outrageous engines that may need to be topped up occassionally?

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

They must have, because it was removed in 1994. It might have been optional. (Somewhere mentioned something like that)

I don't really recall it being mentioned a lot recently, if at all, they lowered the fuel tank capacity at the same time? I guess most people weren't refueling?

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.

Here you go boys and girls. A bit of history about refueling in F1

Click

---

...on Earth, as it is in Queensland

Right, I didn't think it was typical and that everyone wanted it back

---

http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.