So to start this off.................ban Adrian Newey. Pay him 200 million to retire. He is a genius but he's making the races boring. LOL
So to start this off.................ban Adrian Newey. Pay him 200 million to retire. He is a genius but he's making the races boring. LOL
In reply to Tom1200 :
I agree 100% no more Newey
He's not infallible. The previous generation RB struggled to keep up with the Mercedes until the 2021 rule tweaks (aimed at high rake cars like the Merc) made it fully competitive.
I'll give you Newey, but only if you implement a two term limit on being WDC. That would make the races more interesting.
There is a lot to cringe about from the RB / Max camp (a lot of that is Jos, and Helmut) but you have to give mad props to Newey, the guy has been at the top of the sport for decades. Even his "bad car" was the second best car on the track.
How would you do that? Limit someone to WDC only twice?
In reply to MiniDave :
After 2 seasons you have to let Adrian go to the second place team...
I kid, I kid
In reply to Tom1200 :
Haha,he won't be around "that" much longer :)
While I loath RB as a team....mostly because of Helmet/Horner/Jos and how Max races I admire what an old guy with a pencil and slide rule has done to the rest of the super computor crowd.
Just like any other era with domination by one team I think its complete BS to change rules to help those lagging behind or hinder those out front.
In reply to kevlarcorolla :
Trust me I have huge respect for Newey; the level of success over that many years is impressive. Plus he's a vintage racer.
Marko on the other hand............I would never hire that kind of manager.
Tom1200 said:So to start this off.................ban Adrian Newey. Pay him 200 million to retire. He is a genius but he's making the races boring. LOL
He's gonna need a bigger garden.
There are ways to ensure closer racing but there doesn't seem to be the will to do them. Here are just a few of my suggestions: 1. Spec narrow front wing (think about a 1988 McLaren wing)-low downforce, very little outwash=easier to follow and longer braking zones 2. Reduce sizes of cars and lower minimum weight=cars are more maneuverable but also take up less physical space on the track 3. Sprint Races are reverse grid based on WDC points=exciting racing 4. Teams with fewer points get more wind tunnel time, practice miles and parts allowances (like MotoGP-it just works to give lower teams more opportunities to improve) 5. Increase budget cap but include driver salaries in the total
Tom1200 said:So to start this off.................ban Adrian Newey. Pay him 200 million to retire. He is a genius but he's making the races boring. LOL
I was thinking of a Newey Round Robin where every team had 1 year of Newey support and it rotated based on D&D Dice rolls.
Edit: And a Joker Lap, each time has to rotate having a Ferrari Team Member run their strategy. Ferrari and Newey to not overlap.
MiniDave said:How would you do that? Limit someone to WDC only twice?
Pull their Superlicense.
84FSP said:Tom1200 said:So to start this off.................ban Adrian Newey. Pay him 200 million to retire. He is a genius but he's making the races boring. LOL
I was thinking of a Newey Round Robin where every team had 1 year of Newey support and it rotated based on D&D Dice rolls.
Edit: And a Joker Lap, each time has to rotate having a Ferrari Team Member run their strategy. Ferrari and Newey to not overlap.
I disagree: I'd like to see which force is stronger!
In reply to loosecannon :
The Race did an U of T article about the outwash issue, and how the FIA can deal with it as it's part of the rules to keep it as low as possible. But they really think nothing will happen before 2026, even though it would be a pretty easy detail update that would get the outwash closer to 2022 levels. Or more correctly, the ability to follow the cars more like 2022.
So while something can be done, it looks like nothing will be done. Too bad that whoever gets into turn one first will likely win the race.
As for the size issue. that's more about the hybrid system than anything else- meaning the engine makers want that. The odd thing, as F1 goes 100% renewable fuel, the "reasons" for hybrid in F1 goes away. (which was another The Race article).
MiniDave said:How would you do that? Limit someone to WDC only twice?
Clearly I was talking out of my ass.
How about a yearly lottery for who drives for each team? "Oh no, Hamster drew Williams. Tough luck."
loosecannon said:There are ways to ensure closer racing but there doesn't seem to be the will to do them. Here are just a few of my suggestions: 1. Spec narrow front wing (think about a 1988 McLaren wing)-low downforce, very little outwash=easier to follow and longer braking zones 2. Reduce sizes of cars and lower minimum weight=cars are more maneuverable but also take up less physical space on the track 3. Sprint Races are reverse grid based on WDC points=exciting racing 4. Teams with fewer points get more wind tunnel time, practice miles and parts allowances (like MotoGP-it just works to give lower teams more opportunities to improve) 5. Increase budget cap but include driver salaries in the total
1) We tried narrow front (and rear) wings a decade ago, they didn't help much. They went wide again because people got tired of seeing all the lap records be held by Michael Schumacher in the F2003 and wanted the cars to go faster.
2) Lower min weight is in direct conflict with recent changes that are focused on driver safety, the hybrid tech that F1 wants to promote for marketing reasons, and with cost control.
3) No thanks. Reverse grids are gimmick that have no place in F1.
4) F1 has always been both a driving and technical sport, and penalizing teams for doing well is not in character with the history of the sport.
5) Adding driver salaries to the budget cap will just have the effect of pushing driver salaries way down. The midfield teams are midfield for mainly technical reasons and you can't fix that by letting them hire a star driver at a lower cost.
Broadly speaking, I don't think F1 is broken. Liberty Media got something like 2.5 billion dollars in revenue out of it last year, and the budget cap and other cost saving measures over the last few years have seemed to mostly address the problem of hemmorhaging the teams at the back of the grid as they go bankrupt. I started watching it in Y2K, 18 of those 23 years have featured significant dominance by one team (5 years for Schumacher, 4 for Vettel, 7 for Mercedes, and now 2 for Red Bull again), and yet the global viewership numbers have only gone up over that time. More close racing would be nice, but empirically it does not appear to be necessary for the sport to be a success.
There are plenty of other racing series that use gimmicks to ensure close racing (NASCAR), and personally I would not like to see F1 change its character to be more like those series.
How many races can Checo drop before they pull him for Lawson?
(Yes, I know he finished P2 in the standings this year)
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:Broadly speaking, I don't think F1 is broken.
Big agree. F1 is more popular than it's ever been. The racing has been highly entertaining and the sport drama is fun to follow. Even though Max is dominating, I think that's okay since this is also an engineering sport, not just a driver competition. And there have been far more dominant cars in the past. It was not uncommon in the 70's and 80's for 1st place to lap 2nd place...
It's a good time to be into F1.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:3) No thanks. Reverse grids are gimmick that have no place in F1.
I agree with everything you said except for this one. I don't think a full field reversal is a good thing but I think it would be great if there was an optional grid drop. My thought is if you qualify in the top 10 you can take a 10 place grid drop and you get X# of points per position gained. Not sure what X is but if you qualify on the pole you can take a 10 place drop, and gain .5 points per position gained or something like that.
If you needed to gain points it would allow people to take a chance and make the race more exciting but not punitive.
jmabarone said:How many races can Checo drop before they pull him for Lawson?
(Yes, I know he finished P2 in the standings this year)
No disrespect to Checo, but I am here for Lawson in a RB. I don't remember how I found out about him, but I've been a big fan for a few years and dude is a great driver.
As far as I can see, the real "problem" with F1 is the same one that has been a problem for decades- when one team finds "the trick", and dominates over all the other teams.
Alfa in the 20s to early 30's; Mercedes and Auto Union in the 30s; Alfa again; Ferrari, Cooper, Lotus, (Cosworth), Lotus a few times, McLaren, Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes, and RBR again. I'll skip the one year wonders, as they didn't really have the budget to keep the wave going, but Brawn ran away with a season early.
The question is how to "fix" that. And for that, I have no idea- as much as I really hate RBR, the fact that they have solved the problem so much better than everyone else isn't their fault. Just like it wasn't Mercedes' fault that they did for the first hybrid era. Or Lotus for the original ground effects or other ideas they had.
And it's not really fair to the creative ones that they allow the rest of the field to artificially catch up. Lets be clear, here- we really like creativity in F1, given I don't see anyone wanting it to be another spec series.
I guess I almost don't think there needs to be a fix for F1 overall right now. They entered a new cost cap concept and need to let the focus remain on finding and closing unintended loopholes etc. Cost cap adjustments for Williams' infrastructure deficit (entered the era without good infrastructure) and how new teams can enter the series (can VW spend 2 billion on infrastructure before joining the series?) need to be really pinned down.
The only area of concern as far as the racing for me is to continue to look at the penalties process for causing a collision, passing off track, etc. The series did a GREAT job sticking to the, white line is the edge of the track rules this year and should continue to do so. They will have to work on how to process them quicker for some tracks but that is why they play with millions.
I think a permanent steward in addition to the visiting round table of old drivers would be a good idea.
I still don't understand the decision to no longer require drivers to give back a position. I have never read a good explanation of how that works now. Kind of a honor system but not. IDK. 
The F1 Academy is going well and unfortunately I don't see any solution to the F2 drivers having no seats in F1. Unless more teams join then we run into tracks not having enough pit lane space. So interesting things to study before chosing to make a change.
The one thing they could do to help the young drivers would be to relax the limitations on new teams. From a sporting standpoint, there's no reason why someone like Audi or Andretti couldn't show up and try to qualify. That used to be the case. I looked back at the 1976 and 1988 seasons recently - 1976 had 29 constructors, 46 teams and 70 drivers. 1988 was the year McLaren won all but one race, but the season had 18 teams and 36 drivers. The number of teams in 1976 was helped quite a bit by the fact that you could basically buy a competitive crate engine at the time.
Qualification wasn't seeding like it is now, it was actually having to qualify to start the race. Some guy named Emerson Fittipaldi finished in the top 6 three times in 1976, but also failed to qualify for one race. The end result was lots of opportunity for drivers to force their way on to the grid, especially at the back. The field wasn't artificially restricted, it was open.
But from a business standpoint, the existing teams don't want the risk of losing out on some prize money. We've seen the grid shrink by 10% over the past decade or so with no attempt to fill it up. It's one of the places where F1 is very clearly a business as opposed to a sport.
In reply to Advan046 :
The "give the spot back" thing is a real problem. Teams know that giving it back is worth far more than the 5 sec penalty, and that's the real problem. Be bad, stretch a lead out to nullify penalty, and done. If you give it back, not only is the time lost given back, but the time loss to pass again is lost.
So, yea, that very much needs looked at. And if you gain a spot by driving a car off, you should give the spot back.
You'll need to log in to post.
