Motorsport Off Topic Thread

I'll be coming with you Duke.

Vertigo's suggestion is that F1 invents new technology, and then deliberately doesn't bother to use it and instead used something a decade old because it sounds better. Just, lol.

Perhaps F1 should drop HD and only broadcast in SD too, that would be simpler. Why bother with 3 sectors, just have 1 timing line per lap as that's simpler. Actually why bother to film it at all, just write a report on Monday mornings, that would be simpler.

Perhaps the senile fans need to be dropped as well as the senile bosses.
 
Duke said:
Yeah I can see why simpler, cheaper, louder V8s would be the right choice for the pinnacle of motorsport.
Click to expand...


But F1 isn't the "pinnacle" of motor sport any more. WEC beats them on hybrid tech hands down.

There isn't a chance of them going back to it however if they did, I would ditch F1 after 20 years for WEC.
Click to expand...

Lets see what happens in 2020 when the big shake up is expected.
Maybe some of the millions(35%) that have stopped watching F1 come back?
 
So your saying that F1 isn't the pinnacle of Motorsport because WEC does a better job of hybrid, yet your solution is to not use hybrid at all :confused:? So your saying F1 should stop trying to be the pinacle and just be GP2?

And you realise the WEC engines and F1 engines are the same technology, right? The series have done the same job with the technology, what's different is the people.
 
Gosh, the fail is getting strong in F1 fandumb again.

Leave the engines as they are, or give them the option of running older 2.4 V8s without KERS if you want to have a cheaper equivalent formula (as the DFV was to the turbo engines in the '80s). Bring back ground effect so cars can follow each other. Scrap the two tyre compound crapola. Job done.

As always, feel free to disagree/misinterpret my post/outright ignore what I'm typing. Just remember - I'm right ;)
 
Hai JRS.

Your right, F1 doesn't need massive sweeping changes, it needs tweaks.

2 tyre compounds is good, but the rules they have to artificially control and link them to qualifying are stupid. Just let them use them how they see fit.

The engines are great, the issue is the PR and marketing around them. Employ some of the WEC marketing guys to get an decent message out.

As for V8s, would they be the same price as before if they are made in small batches in factories no longer equipped to make them? All the teams have agreed that any change to any other engine format, forwards or backwards, will cost more than the current V6s. The V8s were cheap because the manufacturers were producing a 10 year old engine with zero development at volumes of 100 a year. That situation doesn't exist any more.

And that's before you consider how they would make the V8s last 5 races when they were on the limit lasting 3.
 
Skeeter said:
I'll be coming with you Duke.

Vertigo's suggestion is that F1 invents new technology, and then deliberately doesn't bother to use it and instead used something a decade old because it sounds better. Just, lol.
Click to expand...

Yeah because I totally said to go back to V8s just because they sound better :rolleyes:

I have no problem with new technology in general or hybrids in particular but F1 has done an utterly crap job of it. They've come up with a single engine specification which has to be homologated and to which very few changes can then be made. Yeah that really promotes innovation and development of new technologies.

The rules in WEC have allowed the three top teams to produce cars based on both diesel & petrol, naturally aspirated & turbocharged and with 2, 6 & 8 cylinders and that's just the ICE units, the hybrid systems are just as varied.

That's what F1 should have done if it wants to allow genuine innovation and still promote itself as the pinnacle of motorsport, not produce a single, locked down engine design and basically say to everyone "that's what you'll build, end of".

The new hybrid engines may be radically different to the old V8s but are they any *better*? What actual benefit do they bring? They may be more efficient than the old V8s but no one cares about that. Much was made about fuel load and rate limits before last year yet, in reality, it's made zero difference whatsoever. The costs involved in their development have been astronomical when F1 is always going on about saving money. Their reliability has, in many cases, been shocking. Some may claim this is good and spices up the racing, when we have only 11 finishers in the first race of the season and two world champions, including possibly the best driver out there, languishing at the back, it's just a complete joke.

F1 was better as a sport before the introduction of the hybrid engines. As with so many other things, they just made a total hash of it.
 
JRS said:
Gosh, the fail is getting strong in F1 fandumb again.

Leave the engines as they are, or give them the option of running older 2.4 V8s without KERS if you want to have a cheaper equivalent formula (as the DFV was to the turbo engines in the '80s). Bring back ground effect so cars can follow each other. Scrap the two tyre compound crapola. Job done.

As always, feel free to disagree/misinterpret my post/outright ignore what I'm typing. Just remember - I'm right ;)
Click to expand...


Been saying this for years. Give the car back to the driver.
On a side note. People have been using the Lithium Ion cells in power chairs for years. So not new.
 
Skeeter said:
Hai JRS.

Your right, F1 doesn't need massive sweeping changes, it needs tweaks.

2 tyre compounds is good, but the rules they have to artificially control and link them to qualifying are stupid. Just let them use them how they see fit.

The engines are great, the issue is the PR and marketing around them. Employ some of the WEC marketing guys to get an decent message out.

As for V8s, would they be the same price as before if they are made in small batches in factories no longer equipped to make them? All the teams have agreed that any change to any other engine format, forwards or backwards, will cost more than the current V6s. The V8s were cheap because the manufacturers were producing a 10 year old engine with zero development at volumes of 100 a year. That situation doesn't exist any more.

And that's before you consider how they would make the V8s last 5 races when they were on the limit lasting 3.
Click to expand...

I've always thought tyre choice should be unrestricted
Let them use any compound for any race but keep the 'you must use two in a race'
If you have a fast tyre chewing car go medium, medium soft.
If you have a gentle on its tyres car go soft, soft, super soft
Etc

Can pre allocate before race but it stops any question of Pirelli dictating the race
 
Skeeter said:
I'll be coming with you Duke.

Vertigo's suggestion is that F1 invents new technology, and then deliberately doesn't bother to use it and instead used something a decade old because it sounds better. Just, lol.
Click to expand...

And me.

F1 is either a spec formula like GP2/GP3, at which point all the manufacturers leave, or a we let the designers go at it with prototype cars and advanced technology. If it potentially improves road cars then I'm all for it.
 
Lol Vertigo. I think you'll find the manufacturers (you know, the guys who actually make the engines and have a significant involvement with that across the whole car industry) care A LOT about the fuel efficiency of the engines. The V6s are more powerful, smaller, and more efficient than the engines they replaces, all things that are very important to car makers. Just because you don't like the engines doesn't mean everyone else doesn't too.

If F1 doesn't gear itself towards what the engine makers want, who is going to make F1 engines?
 
I never said it would. ;)

It would be a lot of work to build and maintain 20+ engines with "simple" V8s and none of the hybrid gubbins. Bernie would likely want a kickback and then the FIA would meddle with the rules to pull the business out from under the supplier.

What ever happened to that PURE engine that Villeneuve's ex-manager was touting around a couple of years ago?
 
The switch from I4 to V6 killed them off, but they were always going to struggle anyway. It didn't really sound like it had any legs to it.

The hilarious problem with this whole "1000bhp engine" thing is that none of the suggestions people are making fit with the supposed 'problems' they are spouting.

The engines cost too much. So let's use the same engines only turn them up. :confused:
F1 isn't the pinacle of Motorsport. So lets use a V8 engine from over a decade ago. :confused:
The F1 engines aren't relevant. So let's use a spec, Motorsport specific engine. :confused:
There's no innovation in F1. So let's throw l this new innovative technology away. :confused:

It just smacks of crazy stupid people desperately trying to save face. When someone produces a viable solution to a genuine problem with the engines I will gladly entertain it. But while people continue to spout random, poorly thought out drivel I will continue to keep laighing at them...

...and continue to point out that WEC has implemented the same technology and its been hailed a maaive success :p. Maybe what F1 really needs is for the ACO to take over running it?
 
Last edited:
Let them use as much fuel as they want, just limit the fuel tank size. If the driver has been saving fuel and comes out ten seconds behind on his last stop with new tyres and five laps to go, let him turn up the wick and go for the win.
 
Skeeter said:
Lol Vertigo. I think you'll find the manufacturers (you know, the guys who actually make the engines and have a significant involvement with that across the whole car industry) care A LOT about the fuel efficiency of the engines. The V6s are more powerful, smaller, and more efficient than the engines they replaces, all things that are very important to car makers. Just because you don't like the engines doesn't mean everyone else doesn't too.

If F1 doesn't gear itself towards what the engine makers want, who is going to make F1 engines?
Click to expand...

Well firstly, when I said no one cares about efficiency, I was actually talking about fans. As for the manufacturers, yeah I'm sure they want to innovate and develop new, efficient hybrid technologies, my point is that they can't within the straight-jacket that is the F1 rules. If they cared that much about developing new, efficient hybrid technology then WEC is the place to be.
 
MissChief said:
Let them use as much fuel as they want, just limit the fuel tank size. If the driver has been saving fuel and comes out ten seconds behind on his last stop with new tyres and five laps to go, let him turn up the wick and go for the win.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I think that follows the same result as the 'use any tyres' idea. After the first few races or so, the teams will all end up on the same strategy, i.e. the quickest way to finish worked out by various computer simulations.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Well firstly, when I said no one cares about efficiency, I was actually talking about fans. As for the manufacturers, yeah I'm sure they want to innovate and develop new, efficient hybrid technologies, my point is that they can't within the straight-jacket that is the F1 rules. If they cared that much about developing new, efficient hybrid technology then WEC is the place to be.
Click to expand...

If F1 really is a pointless place to develop hybrid engines, why have 4 car makers invested in developing them?
 
So....as you might expect, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Marshall Pruett is saying here.

To clarify - I like the current engine rules in principle, 1.6 turbo engines with KERS are definitely the way F1 needed to go. But the box that the teams have to design their cars in needs to be less restrictive, and if that causes an arms race then so be it. There's already an insane amount of money being spaffed on this sport, why not actually make it do something?

This kind of insanity takes money, and lots of it. Manufacturers are committing F1-level budgets on a lesser-known series like the WEC because they can play on their own terms there, go into battle with their own technology, and keep a (mostly) straight face when they say that some of what they've learned in LMP1 will trickle into future road cars.
Click to expand...

This is the key point for me and something that I know I've said on many occasions on here - If there is some kind of tangible return on investment, manufacturers will invest.
 
But using that argument, surely there is a return on investment in F1, other wise, why the hell have 4 car makers (including 1 returning to the sport) decided to invest?

None of them have gone to WEC (LMP1). So unless your suggesting the collective management of Honda, Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault are all complete idiots, then it must mean that there is value in F1.

On your other points, the F1 engine isn't as standard as people seem to think. Yes the ICE is fairly heavily restricted, but its only 1 part out of 6 in the whole PU. All 4 manufacturers have 4 very different ways of doing the same thing in terms of exhaust, turbo and MGU designs. There's also significant differences in the packaging setup even between teams running the same engine. I would be very surprised if any 2 teams on the grid had the same setup in the back of their cars. The PU's are more diverse now than in the V8 or V10 days, when all you could really play with was the exhaust layout. Basically, the argument that F1 engines are to restrictive has been around for a decade or more longer than the V6 turbos that are getting the blame for it (edit: make that 20 years if you want to go back to when the FIA first started mandating a single engine type for the whole grid, in 1995!).

And the arms race. Ok I see your point, but doesn't that kind of fly in the face of all the arguments about how people want the cars handed bakc to the drivers? Everyone has spent the last 5 years complaining that the best car has won and the driver is insignificant. You aren't going to appease these people by allowing the cars to play an even bigger part. F1 can't sit on both sides of the fence at once. Should it be about the best drivers, or the best cars?

I love WEC. I think the cars in it are fantastic. As I've said before, that Porsche 911 GT3 RSR Hybrid that rocked up a few years back and made everyone take note was the turning point. Since then WEC have done a stirling job of championing the technology, and the rewards are a rapidly growing popularity. F1 has taken the same technology and made a complete farce of it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom