3 ms·

Things are easy ... until you realize that F1 is a pretty difficult balancing act. It has to be exciting, but people demand safety. Cars have to be advanced,

by bborud 11y ago

Things are easy ... until you realize that F1 is a pretty difficult balancing act. It has to be exciting, but people demand safety. Cars have to be advanced, but differences between them small enough for there to be actual competition. We have lots of technology, but what we like to see is driver skill and not how fast a computer can hurl 600+ kilograms of mass around a track. As these considerations play out you end up with Formula One. Which is compromise upon compromise. While maintaining some sort of illusion of F1 being the ultimate expression of technology and skill for the uneducated and the ignorant masses. Don't get me wrong. The drivers and the teams are pretty much the ultimate performers in their respective disciplines. All of the drivers are top athletes that can take a lot more punishment while maintaining higher levels of concentration over longer periods of time than the vast majority of olympians. But they are still part of something that needs to work as a show. And it just won't pull in any money if you have one or two teams dominating the field completely for year after year. As any big sport, F1 is closer to pro wrestling than it is to the pure sport we would like to tell ourselves that it is.

neor 11y ago
A huge problem with F1 is how the money is divided. Ferrari gets 100 million for being Ferrari, championship winning teams get well over 150 million and the small teams get nothing to 10 million. If the money would be divided more fairly the changes between the topteams and backmarkers would be a lot smaller, and teams like Manor might actually find themselves somewhere in the midfield of F1. The concept this guy drew looks nice, but I don't think it is realistic. He says F1 should have more simple rules so designers have more freedom in designing beautiful cars. Problem is; they don't want to design a beautiful car. The teams are only interested in fast/efficient cars. Give them more freedom and they won't come up with the McLaren in this post but probably with some horrific looking car just because it gains them a few tenths of a second.
TheCoreh 11y ago
> what we like to see is driver skill and not how fast a computer can hurl 600+ kilograms of mass around a track. Speak for yourself, I'd love to see that. In fact, I'd love if they made all the cars either remote controlled or self driving, and removed most of the safety rules and the restrictions to keep things "competitive". I mean, it could be another sport, with another name. But I'd love to watch that.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Yes, please. I'd love to watch that as well. And no tech difference limits for "competitiveness" - let the best engineering team win, however unfair their idea is; the next year, someone will figure out how to beat them anyway.
- x0054 11y ago
  I second that! Perhaps it should be another sport indeed. It would also promote self driving cars, and make people feel a little safer about the concept.
- kamaal 11y ago
  Good, but without human drivers involved, emotions and then the fun is gone. Sports are interesting to me because of demonstration of human qualities like hard work, brilliance, endurance and even the mistakes we make. Because they bring out the best in us. If I have to see how well algorithms work, TopCoder or SPOJ generally does the job, I don't see much fun in two emotionless bots flying on the track without having the faintest clue what the whole thing is all about.
  - bborud 11y ago
    > Good, but without human drivers involved, emotions and > then the fun is gone. Precisely. Ask people who Ayrton Senna is and they'll probably know he was a F1 driver from Brazil, won championships, died in an accident and was buried as if head of state. Ask them about the MP4/4 Honda RA168E and even many anoraks will have some trouble telling you what championship year it ran.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
sambe 11y ago
I think a lot of the compromises are due to being pulled in different directions by market analysis. Some people want looser rules/more innovation but this drives up costs and the advantages of the big teams. Other people want everyone in the same car. Some people want no refuelling or team tactics because it's confusing/not about the driver. My feeling is that F1 has always been about the driver, the engineering and the tactics (including team tactics) and all three should be present. People who want it to be simpler/only about the driver will never be long-term fans anyway.
pmontra 11y ago
As a fan I want cars that are fast in corners, with high lateral accelerations, and can overtake easily. That has been difficult to achieve because the former usually hinders the latter (KERS and DRS were introduced for that and have been reasonably successful). Finally, remember that (almost) by definition Formula 1 cars must be the quickest racing cars on the planet measured by lap time. The latest rules reduced the aero package and made Formula 1 closer to GP2 and Champ Car. Montreal circuit, from the Wikipedia page: Formula 1 2004 1:12.275 Formula 1 2014 1:14.393 Champ Car 2002 1:18.959
- davej 11y ago
  It's amazing how quickly that F1 catches up despite the rule changes though. Qualifying times at Austria (last weekend) were within 0.5 seconds of the qualifying lap record, and that's despite the two Mercedes going off-track in their final lap.
  - pmontra 11y ago
    They have an advantage in Austria. The turbocharged engines perform better than the old v10 and v8 because of the altitude. We'll see what they do at Monza, an engine track at sea level (less than 200 m altitude). They've been 4 s slower than the 2004 record last year.
ajuc 11y ago
> It has to be exciting, but people demand safety. Why not use remote-controlled drones, then?
- jonathansizz 11y ago
  Because it has to be exciting.

by bborud 11y ago

neor 11y ago

A huge problem with F1 is how the money is divided. Ferrari gets 100 million for being Ferrari, championship winning teams get well over 150 million and the small teams get nothing to 10 million. If the money would be divided more fairly the changes between the topteams and backmarkers would be a lot smaller, and teams like Manor might actually find themselves somewhere in the midfield of F1. The concept this guy drew looks nice, but I don't think it is realistic. He says F1 should have more simple rules so designers have more freedom in designing beautiful cars. Problem is; they don't want to design a beautiful car. The teams are only interested in fast/efficient cars. Give them more freedom and they won't come up with the McLaren in this post but probably with some horrific looking car just because it gains them a few tenths of a second.

TheCoreh 11y ago

> what we like to see is driver skill and not how fast a computer can hurl 600+ kilograms of mass around a track. Speak for yourself, I'd love to see that. In fact, I'd love if they made all the cars either remote controlled or self driving, and removed most of the safety rules and the restrictions to keep things "competitive". I mean, it could be another sport, with another name. But I'd love to watch that.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Yes, please. I'd love to watch that as well. And no tech difference limits for "competitiveness" - let the best engineering team win, however unfair their idea is; the next year, someone will figure out how to beat them anyway.
x0054 11y ago
I second that! Perhaps it should be another sport indeed. It would also promote self driving cars, and make people feel a little safer about the concept.
kamaal 11y ago
Good, but without human drivers involved, emotions and then the fun is gone. Sports are interesting to me because of demonstration of human qualities like hard work, brilliance, endurance and even the mistakes we make. Because they bring out the best in us. If I have to see how well algorithms work, TopCoder or SPOJ generally does the job, I don't see much fun in two emotionless bots flying on the track without having the faintest clue what the whole thing is all about.
- bborud 11y ago
  > Good, but without human drivers involved, emotions and > then the fun is gone. Precisely. Ask people who Ayrton Senna is and they'll probably know he was a F1 driver from Brazil, won championships, died in an accident and was buried as if head of state. Ask them about the MP4/4 Honda RA168E and even many anoraks will have some trouble telling you what championship year it ran.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

sambe 11y ago

I think a lot of the compromises are due to being pulled in different directions by market analysis. Some people want looser rules/more innovation but this drives up costs and the advantages of the big teams. Other people want everyone in the same car. Some people want no refuelling or team tactics because it's confusing/not about the driver. My feeling is that F1 has always been about the driver, the engineering and the tactics (including team tactics) and all three should be present. People who want it to be simpler/only about the driver will never be long-term fans anyway.

pmontra 11y ago

As a fan I want cars that are fast in corners, with high lateral accelerations, and can overtake easily. That has been difficult to achieve because the former usually hinders the latter (KERS and DRS were introduced for that and have been reasonably successful). Finally, remember that (almost) by definition Formula 1 cars must be the quickest racing cars on the planet measured by lap time. The latest rules reduced the aero package and made Formula 1 closer to GP2 and Champ Car. Montreal circuit, from the Wikipedia page: Formula 1 2004 1:12.275 Formula 1 2014 1:14.393 Champ Car 2002 1:18.959

davej 11y ago
It's amazing how quickly that F1 catches up despite the rule changes though. Qualifying times at Austria (last weekend) were within 0.5 seconds of the qualifying lap record, and that's despite the two Mercedes going off-track in their final lap.
- pmontra 11y ago
  They have an advantage in Austria. The turbocharged engines perform better than the old v10 and v8 because of the altitude. We'll see what they do at Monza, an engine track at sea level (less than 200 m altitude). They've been 4 s slower than the 2004 record last year.

ajuc 11y ago

> It has to be exciting, but people demand safety. Why not use remote-controlled drones, then?

jonathansizz 11y ago
Because it has to be exciting.