TBK-Light.com

_________________
BTCC Pick Em's Champion 2010
Formula Fun Cup Champion 2013
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk

Here's what the teams got paid in prize money for 2014:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118955



That $249m 'premium' payout should be cut & used to give more to the smaller teams. I'd also raise the split the teams get to at least 75% as I'm sure Bernie, FOM, CVC & whoever else gets a slice can survive on the millions they would get from the remaining 25%.

With an estimated $1.650Bn flowing into the sport its unacceptable to have teams struggling like we do & its about time those at the top of the sport wake up before we reach a point where its too late for the smaller teams.

Wonderful
https://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/2 ... t-formula/

if they bring back refuelling so Pirelli can make faster tires with no wear issues

_________________
Motorsports trend for 2024: everything is a bad taste joke now

Oh fuck off, keep the refuelling ban but scrap the fuel flow limit. If they run out of fuel then tough fucking shit.

There's far too much sense and logic in Will's article for F1 to want any part of it.

_________________
BTCC Pick Em's Champion 2010
Formula Fun Cup Champion 2013
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk

Today marks 65 years of Formula 1.
http://www.alfaromeopress.com/press/article/116938

_________________

I don't agree with it. He advocates more common parts. I find it more interesting when there are different strategies, cars with different strenghts and weaknesses competeing against each other. Just have a look at the DTM, which uses a lot of common parts. I'd even advocate different engine formats, or at least more freedom instead of regulating even the diameter of the piston and the engine banking. Diversity is better and more appealing. You only have to make a proper reglement for once, instead of fixing symptoms and neglecting major problems.

I didn't read it that way. From what I saw he was suggesting tighter regulation and standardization around areas where R&D has gone out of control (in terms of time and investment). By tightening the regulations around those areas the rules makers could / would / should identify other areas of open development.... Will even says in the article that he doesn't think a spec or GP1 formula is the way forward. Instead of rewriting the regulations for 2017 they should simply tweak certain aspects. But like I said, that's too sensible an idea for F1 to want to be part of.

_________________
BTCC Pick Em's Champion 2010
Formula Fun Cup Champion 2013
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk

I don't believe simply "tweaking certain aspects" is gonna cut it for F1. F1 has got out of touch with what it is supposed to be and is now paying for it.

If Pirelli brings faster tires, they will only wear faster. If they bring harder tires, though, it might be faster over a full stint but not on a qualifying lap, is that what you meant?

Bridgestone brought harder tires for 2010 exactly because of no more refueling.

Michelin made clear what they think of the current situation:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118945

I still think the best thing to do to improve the tyre situation is simply to let teams do what they want.

Run the soft's that are 2 seconds a lap faster but will see you pitting in 10-15 laps, Pick the hard's that are slower but may last the whole race (With a bit of management), The mediums are somewhere in between & you them drop the mandatory stop to run 2 compounds & let teams have the option to run 1 compound all race or switch compounds during a race.

The biggest problem with tyres is that teams are forced to run what Pirelli tell them run & are then forced by the FIA to run both compounds which then gives teams very little freedom which then see's everyone run the same or broadly similar race strategy more often than not & which handicaps teams/drivers if Pirelli pick a compound that doesn't work for them.


Refueling isn't an answer to anything, It was (In my opinion) a negative for the racing before & it would be if brought back because it just always seemed to put strategy above the racing so we saw less overtaking & more passing via fuel stops with at times drivers fighting for position when nowhere near each other on track which was something I always disliked.
Watching drivers in a close fight on track is always better than watching basically a time trial between drivers on different fuel strategy (2004 French Gp is a good example of this).


The biggest thing that needs to be done is to Sort out the financial structure. Ensure a more healthy grid with 10-13 teams & that will provide a competitive field from front to back & that will do more for the racing than any rule change.

No offense, but why would I want to watch strategy if I'm looking at racing cars? I want to see racing, not strategy. If i wanted strategy, I would play a strategy game. Ideally, no refuelling, no tire change, tires so hard you can do 100 qualifying laps and cars that can actually follow each other as close as they want in corners. If you have then 10-13 different car makes that have their own pros and cons, yes, that is great to watch. Racing should be racing.

Yes F1 is a big team sport, but it should still be about racing, not 10 guys on the pitwall calculating what the driver actually should do.

I want them to get rid of the endurance aspect. Only four engines for an entire season? Gearboxes that have to last many races? I doubt that the r&d costs are lower if you have to make an engine last five races. Instead, bring back freedom. This will also lead to uncertainty if a driver will finish or not. And get rid of the damn carparks next to the racetrack where mistakes dont get punished anymore. Watch a race before the 2000s. It looks so much more exciting with grass and gravel next to the track, and cars occasionally kicking up dust when the cut a corner too much. An bring back more various kerb designs. Now every track is the same. And make the cars look better again. The proportions nowadays are hideous.

Once again I repeat myself. Ample of excitement comes from unpredictability, whether it's a surprise win or podium place, changing weather conditions, technical problems, driving mistakes and collisions.

Lately everything has been very predictable. There haven't been any "wow, didn't see that coming" moments for a long time. Ricciardo's win in Canada and Massa's pole position at Red Bull Ring are the most recent ones. Thank god for those moments, but this season looks even worse.

But even with a surprise winner the +50 laps can be so dull if nothing random happens. Overtaking is so predictable with DRS that I yawn every time i see that happening. Even practice sessions seem to be dull nowadays. Last weekend at Barcelona was totally incident free. Just compare the number of incidents in 2002 and 2004 (notoriously dull years). Were the cars more difficult to drive?



I wanna relive the times Schumacher was taken out twice in the start mayhem, when Herbert won and Trulli was second, when Häkkinen lost it in Imola and Monza, when there was 12 retirements at Hockenheim and Montoya and Coulthard both retiring from the lead, when Fisichella won the Brazilian GP, when Verstappen was ahead of Schumacher in Malaysia, when Kimi & Sato collided at Monza, when Coulthard was held behind by Bernoldi, when Fisichella claimed the pole at Spa.

If FIA's goal is to eliminate all the randomness, they surely have succeeded.

how beautiful could be gravel all over the place with a spun off

_________________
Motorsports trend for 2024: everything is a bad taste joke now

There may have been a few more jaguars and Jordans spinning into gravel traps and a couple more engine failures, but back then I was yawning way more than you were at a drs pass.
Spain was by no means a great race but ypu had grosjean going around the outside of kvyat in turn 1, maldanado passing a good few cars early on before Derping as usual, Lewis strategy interest and the final lap incident between the red bull sponsored cars.
That alone puts it way out in front of any Spanish gp of the 90s/2000s (except for the wet ones obv)
All those races has was aero dependence so high that the only chance to overtake was to undercut during a pit stop.
*yawn*

And its not the fia that wants a lack of randomness. If anything when they set these harsh engine and fuel rules they probably expected a lot more retirements.
It's the teams doing a great job that has made the reliability as good as it has been.

Well...not Renault, or Honda. But you know what I mean

_________________
RIP Birmingham Wheels: here's some of the crash videos I recorded when it was there:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIaKIE ... 5t9d5PvoHA

Twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/paulhadsley

Cost saving ditched again

But potential of customers cars is back

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118979

I can understand why CFD was rejected as all the teams (bar Manor probably) have invested millions into their wind tunnels and they wouldn't want to scrap those expensive pieces of kit. Makes no sense.

What teams should agree upon is a way to reallocate R&D money to something far more useful. Like from front and rear wing development to drive trains.

Customer cars won't happen. What should happen is a way for making it easier for new teams to enter or at least become stable in the sport... like a GP2 team being able to use an upgraded GP2 chassis to F1 rules, or perhaps teams (like Manor or Caterham) being able to use V8s instead of the V6Ts...

F1 / FIA / Bernie / CVC need to get their collective heads out of their arses and come up with some sensible decisions that are the good of the sport and it's participants and fans, rather than think about the sizes of their ever increasing wallets.

_________________
BTCC Pick Em's Champion 2010
Formula Fun Cup Champion 2013
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk