Pulled the Plug on F1

[Manoah2u]

F1 changed. The current format isn't that bad to be honest. Actually, i kinda like it. Despite the standard comment that the sound could be a bit louder. Again, for TV coverage, just up the volume and it'll be fixed.

Anyway, in NL, you can now only get F1 from the decoder. I won't pay, i'm against that. BBC has some shows, but they are just some races and to be honest, i'm sick and tired of annoying eddie jordan. I dont like BBC anymore. i used to, not anymore.

I love the sky reports.

Anyway, i just download them in 720p HD, they pop up after a couple of hours when the race is finished on torrents, so i'll just avoid any f1 news before i seen the race. I'd prefer seeing it live, however, i won't have to get out of bed early and disturb my entire rithm of the day.

[GitanesBlondes]

You're so cute when you try to create a straw man argument Foxy.

Anyway since you don't actually have a point, I'm just going to assume you knew exactly what I meant.

Besides mechanical failures are lots of fun...after all, watching all of those exploding Mercedes engines (or were they Ilmor engines were Mercedes valve covers?) in the 90s and early 00s made for some exciting moments. Plus it proved how a large enough bag of Deutsch marks could make fans pretend that after one year the Mercedes engines were somehow better than the prior season's Peugeot V10's...just sayin'...

And what feeble attempt would you call this?

You see, I don't see why an engine failure adds anything to racing. It doesnt, it takes away. Thats the point Gitanes, take it or leave it.
And that troll bait you left is most odious....almost as if the scent of the destroyed Mercedes/Ilmor engine smoke was more acrid than those of BMW, Toyota, Ferrari, Honda, Ford, Coswoth etc etc.
Try some panache next time...

Oh well, I wasn't pretending you made any sort of argument. I was just telling you one of the things I loved about when mechanical failures did occur. But I specially tailored it just for you Fox.

But anyway, to your feelings that engine failures do not add anything to the racing...it may not add anything to whatever your opinion of "racing" is...which is fine. However depending on what the circumstances of the engine failure were in the old days (poorly built engine, driver causing engine overrev) it was a part of the sport as it was (non-driver error situations) a testament to the quality of the design of the engine under true stress. The engines are currently capped at 15,000RPM, but no one is going near that.

I guess it's amusing how F1 claims to be some sort of engineering marvel, yet my point is, ok if that's the case, then there should be zero need for homologation, no? If these guys are that good, let's see what they can do on the engine-side of things with the gloves off. I personally would have had zero problem with this formula if it had truly been about letting Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari, and whomever else come up with their own designs instead of forcing them to design nearly identical engines. Where's the fun in that? And if some engines blow up during races, well there is fun in that too, since it adds some unpredictability, and we can sit here wondering how an engine-builder is going to improve reliability.

Since engine failures are nearly non-existent, we got Pirelli tires which were designed to try and add that unpredictability back to races.

[bhall]

I think the focus on mechanical failures, in and of themselves, is very wide of the mark here, as it implies a sort of fatalist outlook on racing that I don't believe is actually present.

Personally, I lament F1's current record of reliability, because it means boundaries are no longer being pushed. Every engine manufacturer in the world can easily create a reliable engine, just as they can easily create one with massive power. The trick is to combine both attributes in a package that's light enough to be competitive on a racetrack, and that's incredibly difficult. As such, engine failures in racing are most often caused by designs which cannot strike that balance.

Besides, how can someone possibly know the limit if he never crosses it?

For my money, one of the most impressive aspects of Michael Schumacher's run of success with Ferrari is that he didn't retire from a race due to an engine failure for over six years, from the 2000 French GP to the 2006 Japanese GP. Some may dismiss that feat as the result of engines frequently designed to last no longer than a single session. But, that was also true for every engine used during that period, and no other manufacturer can lay claim to such an accomplishment.

"The ideal racecar will expire 100 yards past the finish line." ~ Stirling Moss

In other words, make the car only as reliable as it needs to be and no more. It can be argued that logic still holds true, that components merely need to be reliable for a longer period. I think that's a bit like aspiring to be a roadie instead of a rock star: while perfectly respectable, it doesn't sound anywhere near as fun.

[Pup]

Bernie may be about to give us what we want, at least in terms of being able to cut the cable...

Bernie Ecclestone has agreed to race formula one into the digital age. Early this week, Ferrari boss Stefano Domenicali urged the F1 chief executive to embrace the internet, as the “young generation” does not want “to see an entire race for one and a half hours”. A report by the Bloomberg news agency said the official F1 website is only the 39th most popular among rival sports, worryingly outpaced by the likes of Egyptian soccer and American entertainment wrestling.

The report said chief executive Ecclestone has until now resisted embracing the internet to protect the huge revenue stream of exclusive television rights. Now, Bloomberg reports that F1′s media strategy will get a modern facelift as quickly as June of this year. The report said the sport will have a new website and ‘app’ that offers subscription-only video options, improving on the current three minute race highlights edit put to music.

“We’re planning a new app; it’s a decent-size project,” Ecclestone confirmed. “It’s something that we are working to get right.”

The 83-year-old warned, however, that television will continue to be the “mainstay” of F1 coverage. And he said fans will be charged for the new ‘app’.

“We don’t do things for free,” said Briton Ecclestone.

Depends of course on what it costs, what it offers, etc. - but it least there's some movement in the right direction.

[GitanesBlondes]

That is my ultimate point - engines blowing up and the other sort of mechanical failures being testaments to boundaries actually being pushed.

F1 has become anathema to risk of all sorts now, not just on a safety level, but on an engineering level. Hard to believe it's almost 20 years since we last had a V12 in Formula 1. Not that the V12 engine was the be-all and end-all. But it represented a time when F1 was genuinely about fielding the biggest and baddest race cars on the planets.

If you guys want more on-track action with open-wheelers, I suggest checking out IndyCar. It does a far better job on that front than F1 even does.

[FoxHound]

So Hang on a minute.... May I summarise?

Engines blowing up showed that the tech was advanced or that the rules allowed for innovation?
Or, is it that you enjoy the sport more that you are safe in the knowledge these cars used to be "innovative/advanced"?

Let's say Jean Alesi was wringing the neck of his Ferrari V12, and the pitboard came out to say..."Oi! Alesi....Calma con Cavalino Rampante!" He would then be forced to drive within himself to preserve the engine. Or there would be an inevitable blow up punctuated with alot of Italian expletives, possibly even no Pasta for a week!
But hey....his V12 was state of the art!

[bhall]

So Hang on a minute.... May I summarise?

Engines blowing up showed that the tech was [advancing.]
enjoy the sport more [when cars/engines/etc are developed to improve racing instead of marketability.]

Let's say Jean Alesi was wringing the neck of his Ferrari V12, and the pitboard came out to say..."Oi! Alesi....Calma con Cavalino Rampante!" He would then be forced to drive within himself to preserve the engine [just like today's drivers are instructed to save tires or manage fuel economy]. Or there would be an inevitable blow up punctuated by [further engine development.]
But hey....his V12 was [as irrelevant then as F1 PUs are now.]

Had you summarized it like that, I would have agreed with you completely.

[Moxie]

So Hang on a minute.... May I summarise?

Engines blowing up showed that the tech was advanced or that the rules allowed for innovation?
Or, is it that you enjoy the sport more that you are safe in the knowledge these cars used to be "innovative/advanced"?

I am amused that you have paraphrased my opinion with a belittling attitude. It is a little aggressive of you but I am not here to "win" an argument. I started the thread, and expressed my thoughts because I like a healthy discussion. Now if you actually have an opinion of your own, please do express it. Exactly what form should F1 competition take? Current status quo? Would you prefer the championship team to take every sirst and second place podium positions? Would you prefer to end this engineering competition nonsense and let the teams drive spec cars so fans can focus on the drivers rather than themselves? By all means offer up an idea of your own.

Let's say Jean Alesi was wringing the neck of his Ferrari V12, and the pitboard came out to say..."Oi! Alesi....Calma con Cavalino Rampante!" He would then be forced to drive within himself to preserve the engine. Or there would be an inevitable blow up punctuated with alot of Italian expletives, possibly even no Pasta for a week!
But hey....his V12 was state of the art!

I don't remember that race specifically, but the scene you describe does represent excitement. For argument sake, assume a driver is leading a race, and pushing the car hard, and the engineers inform him to slow down to preserve the car,and as a result he loses the lead, but preserves his second place points. That represents an engineering failure. On that day the better car won the race, and that is exciting to me...within the context of F1.

I have clearly stated that I consider F1 to be a contest of engineers. When engineers push the limits, parts fail, and I accept this a part of the sport. In current F1 the contest of engineers is over before the cars ever hit the track.

Now, to confuse you even further, when I am watching a different series such as dirt track sprint cars, I do not like to see the cars POP. Everyone drives similar low tech equipment, and it is reliable. Dirt track sprint racing is more a contest of drivers' skills than a contest of engineering. F1 represents a different type of racing...a competition of engineers.

[flyboy2160]

There have been many comments about how F1 would have lost some engine manufacturers (Mercedes and Renault, if I recall) unless it went to some Green, road relevant engine technologies. And that Honda is joining because of the hybrid engine rules. So, therefore, these new rules must be good, right? They've kept the big engine makers in the game!

I think that's wrong. I'll guess that they've lost potential engine manufacturers because of the restricted engine configuration.

To whit: Ferrari balked at I4 turbos, but would BMW? They've just implemented a new line of I3, I4, and I6 turbo engines with a common 500cc cylinder architecture. Couldn't they be at least tempted to revive their old F1 I4 turbo glory days (albeit not on xylene/ toluene)? Wouldn't they like to stick it to their arch rivals Mercedes? "A racing version of the engine in your Series 1 won the Belgian GP and got good gas mileage! and beat Mercedes!" [edit. and if they didn't take the bait, I'd use the old Marty McFly taunt: "Whatsa matter? You chicken?")

To whit: I've read several times that large displacement, slow revving engines get surprisingly good fuel economy. Couldn't one of the American car companies or Toyota be at least tempted to built a super-light, super efficient large displacement engine?

I want to see different engine ideas compete, and blow up occasionally because they're on the edge, instead of the cookie cutter homologated engines we've been stuck with.

[FoxHound]

Moxie,

My banter was at no point directed to you.
No quotes by you, no "moxie" etc etc.
So may I have the offence back that you took!

[FoxHound]

@Flyboy

This for me is imperative. Manufacturer participation.

[Lycoming]

To whit: Ferrari balked at I4 turbos, but would BMW? They've just implemented a new line of I3, I4, and I6 turbo engines with a common 500cc cylinder architecture. Couldn't they be at least tempted to revive their old F1 I4 turbo glory days (albeit not on xylene/ toluene)? Wouldn't they like to stick it to their arch rivals Mercedes? "A racing version of the engine in your Series 1 won the Belgian GP and got good gas mileage! and beat Mercedes!"

But they can do that in DTM while spending less money. I think.

[GitanesBlondes]

So Hang on a minute.... May I summarise?

Engines blowing up showed that the tech was advanced or that the rules allowed for innovation?
Or, is it that you enjoy the sport more that you are safe in the knowledge these cars used to be "innovative/advanced"?

Let's say Jean Alesi was wringing the neck of his Ferrari V12, and the pitboard came out to say..."Oi! Alesi....Calma con Cavalino Rampante!" He would then be forced to drive within himself to preserve the engine. Or there would be an inevitable blow up punctuated with alot of Italian expletives, possibly even no Pasta for a week!
But hey....his V12 was state of the art!

If an engine blows up because it can't handle the rigors of the race, but that will be addressed by the engine builders back in Maranello, it's just a tad bit different than being force to homologate the engines...or trying to sneak in upgrades under the guise of safety. It was fun to see the engine builders try to improve their engines whether or not they won anything.

You do not see engines progress in any meaningful sense any longer throughout the course of a season Fox...I know you already know this. That's the sort of thing that is going to preserve Mercedes advantage for 2014, and it's an absolute joke. It'd be like telling any professional sports team, "No you are not allowed to practice or to improve your team through practice, and/or the signings of new players." Sure even if you can improve things, it's not a guaranteed recipe for success, but it's still more interesting to see a team attempt to improve so should they desire.

The larger point to all of this as I have mentioned elsewhere, is that if you genuinely want manufacturers to participate in the formula as engine suppliers or even teams, you can't hope to have that with homologation. They need to be able to see where their designs stand, and preserving the engine so it doesn't blow up is not the same as not seeing the engines ever pushed because there is no benefit to doing so. Mercedes participating is an abnormality, and Thomas Weber already admitted if the rules didn't change they would have quit. The only reason they wanted the rule change was because they knew they had an advantage internally with their knowledge on hybrid systems, that Renault couldn't match (for financial reasons) and Ferrari couldn't because they didn't spend enough time on the whole thing.

[FoxHound]

Wow! So the only reason mercedes wanted the rule change was because they had a monster v6, eh gitanes?

Thats like saying the egg wanted to cross the road to get to the other side.
Only we know that story didnt happen.

Mercedes and renault wanted more hybrid tech in the sport as well as smaller engines in line with alot of their products.

The reality is, once the engine rules were agreed by all parties, it is fair game for everyone. That is called competition.

Those V8s were looooong in the tooth, now we have spanking new turbos with complex energy recovery systems and you decry lack of innovation completely forgetting the last 8 years of V8s.

Its cool though, you have your views and the world is a better place for difference of opinion.

[bhall]

...we have spanking new turbos with complex energy recovery systems and you decry lack of innovation completely forgetting the last 8 years of V8s.

[...]

1988 Technical Regulations governing the engine in their entirety...



2014 Technical Regulations governing the PU in their entirety...



That's not innovation; that's a homework assignment.