Sir_GT
03-12-2005, 11:55 AM
The 2005 regulations were aimed at reducing costs and increasing safety. Lap times at the opening race of the year in Melbourne indicated that lap times are in the region of 1.5 seconds slower than they were at the same time last year.
With the 20 racers forced to use the same set of tyres for qualifying and the race, it had been suggested that there would be a great deal more passing on track as drivers grapple with varying levels of grip. However, Nick Heidfeld for one believes that it is just as hard to pass this year as it ever has been and the reason is purely aerodynamics.
"You lose downforce when driving too close behind another car," Heidfeld told the WilliamsF1 web site. "Therefore it remains difficult," Heidfeld said.
The BMW Williams driver is of course talking of the 'dirty air' put out by each race car from the rear diffuser which in turn creates turbulence for the following car. It is an age old problem and particularly apparent at circuits which have a long fast final turn as the drivers are unable to tuck under the rear wing of their rival for the long main straight and therefore unable to make the pass.
"I suspect there won't be much of a change," Heidfeld continued. "Of course, as a driver I would like to see more overtaking. It would create a better show for the fans, too."
I disagree completely.
Safety must be looked at, but it shouldn't be the governing force behind the rules or rule changes of a sport, especially when it actually affects the execution of the sport itself.
If anything, F1 should be going balls out. Bring back slicks, high reving engines, state-of-the-art aerodynamics, and all the good things that we used to have. F1 is the pinnacle of motor racing, and they shouldn't be racing at speeds which are equal to or slower than "lower class" racing leagues.
Formula 1 is all about excitement, danger, glamour, high-tech wizardry, and world-class engineering. Why go for the "thrill" of sky diving if there is a giant net that will catch you in case you fumble? I'm not saying that we should go out and try to kill all the F1 drivers (although that isn't such a bad idea), I'm just saying that part of the thrill is the knowledge of danger. Slowing down a racing sport is stupid, protecting the racers isn't. There's a difference. If I wanted to see slow-moving, fast-looking cars, I could bring out my Tamiyas or Kyoshos. I don't want to see that kind of shit on the greatest racing sport in the world.
The only thing that should be changed is the way money is distributed across the participating teams, because at the end of the day, it is the funds which will bring the greatest level of competitive equality to the sport.
If you look at it from a financial point of view, Max and Bernie basically tried their best to "help out" less fortunately funded teams WITHOUT having to resort to a shake-up of the way F1's funds are distributed; almost like a "Right, let's make you guys happy, let's try to make the races exciting, but let's try to keep the money going the way it is, ok? (i.e. most of it going to Bernie and Max)"
If you ask me, the money should be distributed equally in a sort of base fund from which all the teams can take their money from. Funds could be distributed equally between the 10 teams, which would form the base of their funding, and then any additional funding can be sourced from the outside, such as a parent company or sponsors. The funds sourced from the base fund should be operated as a loan, to be paid back by the borrowing teams through several channels, one of which are the sponsors, or the prize money awarded to teams whenever they win points. Teams can also choose to NOT source any money from the base fund, in order for them to not owe anything back, and simply receive money from outside sources, or the race wins.
This way, even small teams like Minardi would have a basic fund to work with, instead of simply their piggy banks of fivers and tenners, in addition to their sponsors. Yes I agree that the bigger teams will still have an advantage (it just may be that Minardi theoretically gets £20M from the base fund whilst Ferrari receives £100M from their company alone), but at least it gives the smaller teams SOME money to work with for development and other necessary expenses, instead of nothing at all.
This, combined with certain rule changes, should level out the playing field, and bring back the fun, the glamour, the excitement, and the REASON why we watch Formula 1 - because it is the pinnacle of motorsport.
Personally, I think one full engine for every two weekends including qualifying sounds good enough, with only one replacement car, but they must remove the rule which allows not finishers to replace engines for the next race. I think with the base fund already in place, they should actually penalize non-finishers with a "two places down" penalty. I.E. if they qualify third for the current race, because they didn't finish the last race and had the engine replaced, they should be moved a place down and start the race from fifth. Why? Because with a base fund from which they can spend development costs on, they should be able to produce engines - or cars really - that can cope with the stress of racing. I think tire changes during pit stops should be brought back (because they were bloody exciting dammit!), and aerodynamics should be brought back to anything goes status... because that's when we see real breakthroughs in racing technology.
That's it. Discuss.
With the 20 racers forced to use the same set of tyres for qualifying and the race, it had been suggested that there would be a great deal more passing on track as drivers grapple with varying levels of grip. However, Nick Heidfeld for one believes that it is just as hard to pass this year as it ever has been and the reason is purely aerodynamics.
"You lose downforce when driving too close behind another car," Heidfeld told the WilliamsF1 web site. "Therefore it remains difficult," Heidfeld said.
The BMW Williams driver is of course talking of the 'dirty air' put out by each race car from the rear diffuser which in turn creates turbulence for the following car. It is an age old problem and particularly apparent at circuits which have a long fast final turn as the drivers are unable to tuck under the rear wing of their rival for the long main straight and therefore unable to make the pass.
"I suspect there won't be much of a change," Heidfeld continued. "Of course, as a driver I would like to see more overtaking. It would create a better show for the fans, too."
I disagree completely.
Safety must be looked at, but it shouldn't be the governing force behind the rules or rule changes of a sport, especially when it actually affects the execution of the sport itself.
If anything, F1 should be going balls out. Bring back slicks, high reving engines, state-of-the-art aerodynamics, and all the good things that we used to have. F1 is the pinnacle of motor racing, and they shouldn't be racing at speeds which are equal to or slower than "lower class" racing leagues.
Formula 1 is all about excitement, danger, glamour, high-tech wizardry, and world-class engineering. Why go for the "thrill" of sky diving if there is a giant net that will catch you in case you fumble? I'm not saying that we should go out and try to kill all the F1 drivers (although that isn't such a bad idea), I'm just saying that part of the thrill is the knowledge of danger. Slowing down a racing sport is stupid, protecting the racers isn't. There's a difference. If I wanted to see slow-moving, fast-looking cars, I could bring out my Tamiyas or Kyoshos. I don't want to see that kind of shit on the greatest racing sport in the world.
The only thing that should be changed is the way money is distributed across the participating teams, because at the end of the day, it is the funds which will bring the greatest level of competitive equality to the sport.
If you look at it from a financial point of view, Max and Bernie basically tried their best to "help out" less fortunately funded teams WITHOUT having to resort to a shake-up of the way F1's funds are distributed; almost like a "Right, let's make you guys happy, let's try to make the races exciting, but let's try to keep the money going the way it is, ok? (i.e. most of it going to Bernie and Max)"
If you ask me, the money should be distributed equally in a sort of base fund from which all the teams can take their money from. Funds could be distributed equally between the 10 teams, which would form the base of their funding, and then any additional funding can be sourced from the outside, such as a parent company or sponsors. The funds sourced from the base fund should be operated as a loan, to be paid back by the borrowing teams through several channels, one of which are the sponsors, or the prize money awarded to teams whenever they win points. Teams can also choose to NOT source any money from the base fund, in order for them to not owe anything back, and simply receive money from outside sources, or the race wins.
This way, even small teams like Minardi would have a basic fund to work with, instead of simply their piggy banks of fivers and tenners, in addition to their sponsors. Yes I agree that the bigger teams will still have an advantage (it just may be that Minardi theoretically gets £20M from the base fund whilst Ferrari receives £100M from their company alone), but at least it gives the smaller teams SOME money to work with for development and other necessary expenses, instead of nothing at all.
This, combined with certain rule changes, should level out the playing field, and bring back the fun, the glamour, the excitement, and the REASON why we watch Formula 1 - because it is the pinnacle of motorsport.
Personally, I think one full engine for every two weekends including qualifying sounds good enough, with only one replacement car, but they must remove the rule which allows not finishers to replace engines for the next race. I think with the base fund already in place, they should actually penalize non-finishers with a "two places down" penalty. I.E. if they qualify third for the current race, because they didn't finish the last race and had the engine replaced, they should be moved a place down and start the race from fifth. Why? Because with a base fund from which they can spend development costs on, they should be able to produce engines - or cars really - that can cope with the stress of racing. I think tire changes during pit stops should be brought back (because they were bloody exciting dammit!), and aerodynamics should be brought back to anything goes status... because that's when we see real breakthroughs in racing technology.
That's it. Discuss.