5 ms·

Funny title. FIA has, for decades, been explicitly forcing the cars to not be the fastest racing cars with byzantine restrictions on the design of the cars and

by yason 10y ago

Funny title. FIA has, for decades, been explicitly forcing the cars to not be the fastest racing cars with byzantine restrictions on the design of the cars and even how they can be designed. I gradually stopped watching F1 races through the late 90's because there was less and less racing and the winning cars were more and more determined by how the engineers found loopholes in the rules for one season until those got regulated or banned for the next season. If they just gave everyone the same car and let the teams augment the base construction instead of building a new car from scratch then the drivers' skills would be more emphasised and leave more room for race action. Also, the more activity there is during the race the more entertaining.

fest 10y ago
I have the opposite impression: it seems to me that FIA regulations are making the cars pretty much the same for all teams.
- tradersam 10y ago
  That is the main goal, but take the turbo switch in 2014 as a counter example-Mercedes out their turbo-charger inline with the engine, and no other teams did this[0], so they dominated for years. So yes, if you have the most money for engineers and parts, you generally have the best chance of winning. [0]:https://www.wired.com/2014/04/mercedes-f1-turbo/ https://www.wired.com/2014/04/mercedes-f1-turbo/
quiquex 10y ago
I agree on your points. Although I believe giving everyone the same car (including engine) would kill F1. I mean the historical and most influential teams like Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and McLaren are manufacturers and they are there for visibility, they would just ditch the series and with them 95% of the fans. There are many series with same car that are very entertaining to watch, but F1 for its own nature will never be one
exDM69 10y ago
> FIA has, for decades, been explicitly forcing the cars to not be the fastest racing cars with byzantine restrictions on the design of the cars and even how they can be designed. Of course they are doing that. The whole history of F1, starting from the late 1950's has been a cat and mouse game of teams pushing the rules and the regulators patching the loopholes to keep it competitive, safe and costs sane. By the early 1970s it became apparent that "anything goes" is a bad recipe for racing cars. By then, technology had advanced to a level where the cars could be made too fast to be safely driven by humans. A third of the racing drivers died in accidents. The fastest cars then were Can-Am cars, which had monstrous engines (1000hp+), huge levels of downforce (and a lot of drag, but enough power to counter that) and stiff chassis made from vacuum filled magnesium tubing. > I gradually stopped watching F1 races through the late 90's because there was less and less racing and the winning cars were more and more determined by how the engineers found loopholes in the rules for one season until those got regulated or banned for the next season. It's not like this begun in the 1990s (although there were record low number of overtakes then). The late 70s and early 80s were largely defined by a team making a vastly superior car and then just dominating. Like Mario Andretti winning with the Lotus 78/79 or the McLaren dominance of mid-80s. F1 is often misunderstood. It's not the most exciting driver-to-driver racing for 120 minutes and it doesn't strive to be. It's predominantly the competition of teams over a whole season. It's not friendly to the casual observer. But they are the fastest racing cars on the planet driven by some of the best drivers there are. And right now it seems that 2017 will be faster than ever and looks like we might be getting some competition at the top this year.

by yason 10y ago

fest 10y ago

I have the opposite impression: it seems to me that FIA regulations are making the cars pretty much the same for all teams.

tradersam 10y ago
That is the main goal, but take the turbo switch in 2014 as a counter example-Mercedes out their turbo-charger inline with the engine, and no other teams did this[0], so they dominated for years. So yes, if you have the most money for engineers and parts, you generally have the best chance of winning. [0]:https://www.wired.com/2014/04/mercedes-f1-turbo/ https://www.wired.com/2014/04/mercedes-f1-turbo/

quiquex 10y ago

I agree on your points. Although I believe giving everyone the same car (including engine) would kill F1. I mean the historical and most influential teams like Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and McLaren are manufacturers and they are there for visibility, they would just ditch the series and with them 95% of the fans. There are many series with same car that are very entertaining to watch, but F1 for its own nature will never be one

exDM69 10y ago

> FIA has, for decades, been explicitly forcing the cars to not be the fastest racing cars with byzantine restrictions on the design of the cars and even how they can be designed. Of course they are doing that. The whole history of F1, starting from the late 1950's has been a cat and mouse game of teams pushing the rules and the regulators patching the loopholes to keep it competitive, safe and costs sane. By the early 1970s it became apparent that "anything goes" is a bad recipe for racing cars. By then, technology had advanced to a level where the cars could be made too fast to be safely driven by humans. A third of the racing drivers died in accidents. The fastest cars then were Can-Am cars, which had monstrous engines (1000hp+), huge levels of downforce (and a lot of drag, but enough power to counter that) and stiff chassis made from vacuum filled magnesium tubing. > I gradually stopped watching F1 races through the late 90's because there was less and less racing and the winning cars were more and more determined by how the engineers found loopholes in the rules for one season until those got regulated or banned for the next season. It's not like this begun in the 1990s (although there were record low number of overtakes then). The late 70s and early 80s were largely defined by a team making a vastly superior car and then just dominating. Like Mario Andretti winning with the Lotus 78/79 or the McLaren dominance of mid-80s. F1 is often misunderstood. It's not the most exciting driver-to-driver racing for 120 minutes and it doesn't strive to be. It's predominantly the competition of teams over a whole season. It's not friendly to the casual observer. But they are the fastest racing cars on the planet driven by some of the best drivers there are. And right now it seems that 2017 will be faster than ever and looks like we might be getting some competition at the top this year.