Does Motor Sport Punish all the wrong people?
- Thread starter Zip
- Start date
Memphis said:
What we have now isn't a top-flight series though is it? It's far too restricted.
Teams have come and gone from this sport since it started. Alfa, Maserati, Mercedes works cars, Vanwall, Lotus, BRM, Cooper, Brabham, March, Ligier, Tyrell, Arrows.....the sport hasn't killed itself yet.
Of the current teams, you have Ferrari, Renault, Honda, Mclaren actually doing anything of note. Williams are having a self-destruct year but will be back. Toyota, BMW, RBR are playing a long-term game to break into the pointy end of the grid. STR, Midland and Super Aguri are just there to make up the numbers. So we have 4 top teams, 1 more that will be back fighting next year hopefully, and 3 that have the budget or the people to make the move up the grid and just need time to get it together. They aren't all going to drop away if you open up the rule book a little bit. And we might even just see some innovation on the grid! Not innovation like BMWs stupid vertical winglets, but even a small team with limited budget but a talented designer coming along and trying something new....That is what used to make F1 great and that is what they need to get back to.
Lotus never had anything like the budget of Ferrari, but were still able to beat them with innovative designs. Brabham started out with very little money, and won two titles on the trot when the 3 litre engines came in for '66 because they built a car that held together better than anyone elses. Tyrell gave Jean Alesi an underpowered but very nimble car which he used to great effect in Phoenix ('90 or '91, think it was '90) and held off Senna for half a race.
You can't tell me that what we have now, with a rulebook closed tighter than a bank vault and nothing remotely new and interesting on the car design front, is better than what we used to have.
Yes but its all down to where the money is coming from. At the moment its partly sponsors that are funding the sport, and if this utopian ideal of 'anything goes' were a reality then the budgets required would rule out most sponsors. We've already seen many huge companies pulling out of F1 due to the cost being so high. Manufactures are in the same boat, theres a cut off before a manufacturer says 'enough is enough' as they won't be getting enough back to justify the huge outlays.JRS said:
Didn't Honda orginally pull out a few years ago as it was getting too expensive?
I don't see F1 as anything more than a money generating machine...theres plenty of other forms of motorsport for enthusiasts after all.
I'm sure it was mentioned before, but if you remove some of the smaller teams from the grid, then the interest in the sport reduces..pretty soon you'll get a tiny grid...US GP anyone?
But then you'll have massive safety issues. The drivers have already said they're getting nervous of the huge cornering speeds as it is, not to mention the risk to the spectators. I remember watching a programme where the F1 designers (years ago) basically said that dirver safety was most definitely secondary to speed, It's all very well saying its fun and exciting, but not when people get killed.JRS said:
JRS said:
I totally agree with this point though.
Last edited:
robbiemc said:
Q) Any why would they not be getting enough back?
A) Because the rule book stops them developing anything!
Of course, if you're going to make the rule book as tight as the FIA have then why not just mandate a chassis and engine? Make it effectively a single-make series with teams operating cars built by an FIA approved manufacturer. It'll end up just being a glorified GP2, and it'll die fairly quickly when all the interest fades away, but at least it'll be cheap!
If I want to watch a series with every car the same aside from it's paintjob and some minor sheetmetal differences, I'll watch NASCAR. When I watch F1, I'm not looking for that.
***edit***
robbiemc said:
Last time I checked, motor racing was supposed to be dangerous.....that would be why the drivers get paid lots of money for it. By all means increase the safety of the cars (HANS device, cockpit padding, wheel tethers etc), but don't strangle the racing or the technology of the cars to achieve it.
Senna, let us be honest here, shouldn't have died. Even the way he came off the track, people had gone off there before and had bigger accidents. They still walked. Gerhard Berger's crash there was much, much worse. But for whatever reason, that wheel came back and the wishbone caught him in the head.
Ratzeberger - he'd gone off the lap before and damaged his front wing. Could have failed anywhere. Could have immediately failed. But it failed at the fast bit (Tosa?), and put him into a very solid wall.
Follow those two with Wendlingler's accident at Monaco, and the governing body had to do something, but was it an overreaction? If Senna and Ratzenberger hadn't died (and merely had big shunts), I reckon half of what they actually brought in wouldn't have been.
Last edited:
robbiemc said:
This is precisely what happened to DTM/ITC in 1997. The rules were virtually anything goes and Mercedes basically bought both the 1996 and 1997 championships by out developing Opel & Alfa Romeo. Despite having the disadvantage of RWD against the other 2 running 4WD Merc still romped away due to having:
Fully automatic gearboxes
ABS
Active ride
Traction control
Active ballast control - yup moving lead weights in the car
Opel & Alfa waved the white flag half way through the season and announced they wouldn't be back until costs were cut drastically. It took 7 years for that to happen and even then Alfa didn't return and Opel have been and gone again.
IF the rulebook was removed, we would be back to a situation where they simply dont know how powerful the cars are because no dyno can take the strain, cornering speeds would be ludicrous and humans wouldnt be able to cope, so electronics would come in. What would you end up with? A car that was insanely powerful, grippy, aerodynamic and a damn sight quicker than anything we have seen in motorsport before - but they would need computers to drive them just to give the drivers time to think.
Think of the runoff areas required for a 300mph straight rather than a 200mph straight. Who is going to pay for the circuits to be brought up to standard or will drivers and spectators alike be left to die?
Think of the runoff areas required for a 300mph straight rather than a 200mph straight. Who is going to pay for the circuits to be brought up to standard or will drivers and spectators alike be left to die?
Good points here. This kind of massive 'out spending the opposition' just hurts the sport as after a season where you've priced all the other teams out, where do you go? You've got nothing to prove, no-one to beat and no reason to continue the innovation.rpstewart said:This is precisely what happened to DTM/ITC in 1997. The rules were virtually anything goes and Mercedes basically bought both the 1996 and 1997 championships by out developing Opel & Alfa Romeo. Despite having the disadvantage of RWD against the other 2 running 4WD Merc still romped away due to having:
Fully automatic gearboxes
ABS
Active ride
Traction control
Active ballast control - yup moving lead weights in the car
Opel & Alfa waved the white flag half way through the season and announced they wouldn't be back until costs were cut drastically. It took 7 years for that to happen and even then Alfa didn't return and Opel have been and gone again.
Wasn't British Touring cars the same? Back in the 'good old days' of the Cosworth etc it was superbly entertaining, but the manufacturers all pulled out stating costs were too high.
DRZ said:
Show me a tyre, outside of drag racing or aircraft, that can take 300mph for more than 1 lap. Show me one that can take corners at the speeds you're suggesting we may see.
Wings and engines are only part of the speed solution - it's just 4 little contact patches of rubber holding it all on the ground (or 6 if you're in a Tyrell P34).
I'm not talking about removing the rule book. Engine capacity obviously has to be mandated, as does length and width. Ride height would to a certain extent if you want to keep ground effects banned still (probably not a bad idea....much as I want to open things up, they did have some spectacular accidents thanks to the GE designs).
But for the love of God let them show a little creativity?
Group B rallying was the same after all the hugely powerful cars came in and promptly started to plow through the crowds. Now, arguably the spectators (in Rallying anyway) need to accept some responsibility, after all I wouldn't be standing on the outside of a gravel corner when 450bhp of car on the limit comes thundering by.JRS said:
robbiemc said:
If you watch some of the vids of Audis thundering along a snowy road, with the crowd inches away, is it really the fault of the driver/designer/car when one of them gets killed? Or should some common sense really be applied when you have a large lump of metal hurtling along nearby?
Theres no demand for tyres that can do 300mph round corners though..if F1 were allowed to create a car like that you can be sure that the tyre manufacturers would create a tyre that could handle it.JRS said:
I do agree with the creativity side of things though. I think everyone here as fond memories of the fabulous innovations that F1 has created...Ground effect, 6 wheelers, active ride etc.
Thats exactly what I'm saying. However rallying has its roots in spectators lining the routes, and you can't really expect the organisers to just ignore their duty of care to the spectators. Hell, if it came down to it, all it needs is one big lawsuit to kill it all. You can't make a rally course 'safe' so you're just left with banning all spectators and leaving it all to TV..that sounds a bit dull.JRS said:
I'm actually quite surprised that rallying has survived so well in this litigious society, there's no barriers and no crowd control yet it carries on.
robbiemc said:
Actually you would have noticed that rallying safety standards have improves greatly.
People are not aloud to stand on the out side of the corners, and in other areas.
There are Marshals around the track to point them where to go and to help rally drivers that crash and they also have yellow flags.
Its much safer then it used to be.
rpstewart said:This is precisely what happened to DTM/ITC in 1997. The rules were virtually anything goes and Mercedes basically bought both the 1996 and 1997 championships by out developing Opel & Alfa Romeo. Despite having the disadvantage of RWD against the other 2 running 4WD Merc still romped away due to having:
Fully automatic gearboxes
ABS
Active ride
Traction control
Active ballast control - yup moving lead weights in the car
Opel & Alfa waved the white flag half way through the season and announced they wouldn't be back until costs were cut drastically. It took 7 years for that to happen and even then Alfa didn't return and Opel have been and gone again.
I loved oldskool DTM.
The last of the Mercs was a composite shell in the middle with the front and rear ends held on by four bolts each.
They demonstrated a 15 minute engine change at one point. Undo 4 bolts, disconnect the prop, wheel it out, wheel the new front in, reconnect, do up bolts, go.
*n
penski said:
I know, I picked the Tyrell as it's the most recognised example. But you're right, several teams tried it.
Tyrell only killed it off because Goodyear wouldn't develop any tyres for their smaller front wheels. Think the FIA banned the idea after Ferrari and Williams designed their variations on the theme.
penski said:
Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile - Screwing Up Formula One Since 1993.
Think it was '93 when FISA disappeared? The FIA's first act being to come out just before the Canadian GP and tell all the top teams - oh, by the way, all your cars are illegal as they use Active Suspension and driver aid systems. We didn't tell you this until now just for the sheer hell of it.
Way to keep the sport stable guys! Bernie had to broker a deal to get everyone calmed back down again.
JRS said:
The March and the Williams both ran 4 driven rear wheels and so fell foul of a ban on four wheel drive and finally a ban on cars with other than 4 wheels. Neither was particularly quick in the dry but the wet was another story - wets on the front of the rear pair cleaned the track enough to run slicks on the rear. This would have been a serious advantage but probably not worth the hassle and extra weight for the number of wet races in a season.