Are the rules pushing F1 into irrelevancy?

[jjn9128]

Why not relax the rules and concentrate them on safety and cost? Let the engineers play in a field with more variables adding many different points of optimization?

The other though is that relaxing rules means the rule makers have to come up with some other means of balancing performance, restricting speeds or introducing competition. I quite like the route that the ACO are taking with their 2020 rules - giving a maximum value on downforce and drag and a minimum aerodynamic efficiency - based on results at the ACO wind tunnel - though they do basically spec the underbody. It would be interesting to see whether F1 could go down a similar route, basically the bodywork rules are free but the power, weight and aero are limited. While I think we'd see some interesting and different designs initially, but I bet within 2 years you'd still get a host of look-a-like cars because designs would converge on whoever is winning.

Another thought is some BOP where you could use a smaller, lower power engine in exchange for different aero or weight limits - that would give some really different looking and handling cars. It wouldn't necessarily make every race tighter but you would get a different set of winners at different character tracks. Over a season it could be tight - like during the tyre war where Bridgestone and Michelin cars would win at different tracks.

[Big Tea]

'go as fast as you can and make a noise'. But then, the wife says its time I was put out to pasture anyway.

Perhaps you should change your technique then...

[Just_a_fan]

While I think we'd see some interesting and different designs initially, but I bet within 2 years you'd still get a host of look-a-like cars because designs would converge on whoever is winning.

Which is the problem with so many of the ideas that come from this forum - there is usually only one or two ways to get the lowest lap time for a given type of car and the teams will converge towards whoever is the fastest.

Another thought is some BOP where you could use a smaller, lower power engine in exchange for different aero or weight limits - that would give some really different looking and handling cars. It wouldn't necessarily make every race tighter but you would get a different set of winners at different character tracks. Over a season it could be tight - like during the tyre war where Bridgestone and Michelin cars would win at different tracks.

I think you'd need to ensure that there was an equal balance of track types for this to work. Whichever track type dominates is the type that the teams would compromise towards. If there are more power tracks then you compromise in favour of the engine, if aero tracks dominate then you go that way. Ideally, you'd have 7 power tracks, 7 aero tracks and 7 "mixed"/"chassis" tracks with the "mixed" tracks at the end of the season. That way, teams could maximise their chosen tracks but everyone fights at the end.

Of course, convergence would occur there too, and everyone would probably chose a balanced approach so as to mximise points across the season - the cars would be like now, in effect.

[outer_bongolia]

The real issue is that F1 has an identity problem. Does it want spectacle, technological innovation, road relevance, a vehicle for the human gladiatorial spirit, or tight competition?! It can't have everything...

I agree up to a point to that.

But at the end of the day, what matters is the return for investment for team owners, sponsors, tracks, and advertisers.

I will stick with owners and sponsors.

Sponsors' return on investment come from having their names seen. This means decent amount of screen time and to be trending in social media. Also, being a part of a winning team helps with the image. In the current condition, this leaves only Red Bull, Ferrari, and Mercedes eligible for decent sponsorship money. The rest is not going to earn enough money from external sponsors.

Owners will need to have either good connections with one of the top three (Toro Rosso, Sauber), be related to a manufacturer (McLaren, Renault), have a rich backer and/or pay drivers (Racing Point and Williams). But even in that case, they are in deep financial troubles.

This is where an update/simplification in rules become so important. Whatever the new rules are, they will need to
1. Attract companies who are interested in developing things that they can sell elsewhere. That's why I had mentioned active suspension and traction control as possible options.
2. Draw more eyes. Yes getting out of the paywall will help. But also technologies that will draw new generations (more electricity, more gaming-friendly behavior) is necessary.
3. Increase bang-for-buck gains. FIA and Liberty should either standardize things or make them a lot freer. Rules that are ridiculously complicated, full of loopholes, make things super-complicated should be cleaned up.

Examples of useless costs in aerodynamics:
a. As an engineer, I love them, but a gamer or a casual watcher will not care about the ridiculously complex bargeboards but they will notice a car is terrible in high speed turns for some reason.
b. Y250 vortex: That is the one of the most important things in aero. You mess its management up and your car is as good as dead. But it is also so artificial. This is not a thing that naturally occurs in a race car, but due to the weird rules. Normal humans will just be turned off by that.

[carisi2k]

The term win on Sunday sell on monday has changed in relevance somewhat. It is more applicable to the sponsors these days then it is to manufacturers. In fact it could be shown that manufacturer involvement along the likes of porsche in wec is bad for the sport. Porsche essentially killed the category with it's successful but short stint in the category. What you need is long term support in the form of Mercedes and Ferrari in F1 and say GM and Ford in Nascar and V8 supercars. Short term brands are not what categories need.

[Andres125sx]

IMHO, yes, rules are pushing F1 into irrelevancy, well, maybe irrelevancy is too harsh/ not accurate, but people´s interest is going down

F1 was very attractive when it really was the pinnacle of motorsports, the fastest cars out there. Today, even when they still are the fastest cars out there, they´re too artificial, too many rules, too similar cars due to an extremelly complex and detailed rulebook, and specially drivers are irrelevant. I enjoy teams and manufacturers battles, but most people don´t really care and take a competition where the car is several orders of magnitude more relevant than drivers as artificial, not interesting and too predictable

I can´t blame them, F1 actually is too predictable and drivers are almost irrelevant with some exception when one season each decade two teams perform similar and drivers become relevant, but most seasons they could be switched between teams and the result would be the same. That is far from interesting for most people.

[Bence]

'go as fast as you can and make a noise'. But then, the wife says its time I was put out to pasture anyway.

Perhaps you should change your technique then...

OMG

[zac510]

If F1 is pushing into irrelevancy then what relevance do other sports have? Soccer, Darts, Golf, Basketball.. They must all be completely irrelevant to modern society too.

[Big Tea]

I suppose the key question would have to be relevant to what?
Relevant to motorcars seen everyday on the road?
Relevant to having the very highest automotive technology?
Relevant to keeping or expanding the fan base?

They would all have different paths and goals

There is then also the questions of should it be done within a time cost or capacity or technical limit and should results or products be the sole property of one team.
Should the total field of items be defined and chosen from those alone or should some items and technologies be ruled out or a free for all within set limits?

The ideal would be a complete clean sheet rethink, but as with anything that already a living system, that will and can not happen.

[outer_bongolia]

I suppose the key question would have to be relevant to what?
Relevant to motorcars seen everyday on the road?
Relevant to having the very highest automotive technology?
Relevant to keeping or expanding the fan base?

Fair enough.

The owners and workers need to see some return. So, f1 needs to be relevant as a business. For owners this can be from advertising or sales of generated technologies. The technicians and engineers need to see some stability and future to commit to F1.

Since it is an entertainment, this also requires it to be relevant to fans because at the end, we choose to spend time in front of the tv. There are a lot of other motor sports to choose from. Especially Formula-E and rally cross are becoming more and more appealing products.

[strad]

I don't think relevant is the right term. Not sure what is but I do know that the public is losing interest.
Other than dedicated F1 fans the drivers can walk down the street and not be recognized. We have no superstars anymore that people even outside of F1 recognize. They are all bland shills for their sponsors imo.
It is no longer seen as fast and exciting outside of a small circle of friends. You'll excuse the Phil Ochs reference.

I bet more people can still recognize Mario Andretti or Jackie Stewart than Lewis Hamilton.

[MrNoo]

I think you also have to look at other racing series that are doing well and have plenty of support, what have they got that F1 doesn't any more. I have followed F1 for 40 years but have watched very few races this last season because it is just plain dull. I find myself watching MotoGP whenever it's on, mainly because they race flat out from flag to flag. That aspect just appeals to me.
I am in awe at the tech that goes into these cars, the craftsmanship and engineering etc, that interests me, hence how I get my fix from info on this site but the racing is dull and no matter how many rules you have, until you can fix that aspect it matters not. I would rather go to a local circuit and watch club racing as it is more of a spectacle as regards racing/overtaking etc.

[Just_a_fan]

I bet more people can still recognize Mario Andretti or Jackie Stewart than Lewis Hamilton.

That's a bet I wouldn't put any money on. It would probably be country-specific, however, as in the US I'm sure Mario is still held in high regard. In the UK, sadly I doubt many would recognise him. Jackie Stewart would probably only be recognised by older race fans. Hamilton will be well known by a whole load of people who don't even watch F1 as he has a wide ranging online presence.

Not sure what is but I do know that the public is losing interest.

I fully agree with this.

Not only are they losing interest, they are being actively driven away by F1's move to a paywall environment.

I can afford to pay to watch F1 through a paywall. Unfortunately, in the UK the only way to do that is now via Sky (except for the British GP which will be live on free-to-air. I won't give Sky my money so that's me out. I would pay Liberty to use their system but Sky's contract prevents that. So F1 has lost me after 40 years. I might watch online streams if I can find a reliable one but that's it. Highlight shows are not a suitable alternative as one loses the flow of the race.

[strad]

Damn that a shame Just_a_fan.
Myself I hate streaming. Seems to always have a glitch at some point.
I pay via my cable which I don't like because besides F1 and some other racing there's very little I want to watch.