Formula One is the company that runs the sport of Formula 1 – and we should never forget that. The sole purpose of the Formula One group, based on recent experience, is to squeeze as much money as possible out of the sport before the teams start to rain on the parade. That will happen when the Concorde Agreement comes to an end and the Formula One group tries to renegotiate its 50 percent share of all revenues. That is a thing of the past.
The major teams are united and if they are smart they will remain that way. And they will team up with the FIA and tell the Formula One group to take a hike if 50 percent is the best offer on the table. The finance people have had their share of the pie and most of F1 will be happy to see the back of them – and to see the money that the sport generates being used primarily to reward those who take part and to invest in people and facilities so that the sport grows.
Don’t get me wrong, everyone is impressed by the kind of deals that Bernie Ecclestone has done over the years with TV stations and race promoters, and perhaps there are not many people who could do such deals, but then the next generation do not need to do that, because the share of the take will be more like 15 percent, rather than the current 50. This will be a percentage which is far more in keeping with the usual rate paid to a promotional company and it will mean that the profits will be a little more mutualised and everyone will have a little more leeway and the sport can move forward in a much more harmonious way, working together for the good of one and all, rather than being divided and conquered because that is what suits Bernie and his cohorts.
What is most important is the integrity of the sport. There was a time when wrestling was seen as a bona fide sport but in the 1980s a new owner came along who believed in “sports entertainment” and turned the sport into a circus (right). He made a great deal more money than had previously been made, and managed to increase TV viewing figures but wrestling as a sport with any credibility died there and then.
It was just another step towards the dystopian world that was envisaged by William Harrison in an Esquire magazine article in the early 1970s, which predicted Rollerball (left), when corporations would take over and create a violent, globally-popular sport in which two teams would kill one another’s players as they try to score goals, echoing the barbarism of the gladiatorial days in Rome.
The calls in the last few days for Formula 1 to adopt races that feature artificial rain storms are disgraceful and one can only hope that Bernie Ecclestone and Paul Hembery of Pirelli are talking up the idea of in an effort to create discussion at a quite time following the cancellation of the Bahrain Grand Prix. If they are serious then both of them should be removed from their offices and sent off to Las Vegas, where such thinking might be appreciated better. Such gimmicks are fake and damaging to the sport and trying to argue that it is no different to street racing or racing at night are simply not correct. Cars have always raced through towns. It is not fake at all. And the night racing is not really night racing. The lights are such that the drivers see everything as they would in daylight – and they would not be racing if that were not the case. Yes, the night race in Singapore looks a bit better on Tv, but the darkness does not affect the outcome. If one is willing to pour water on the race tracks, then why stop there? The next step from there would be to throw some tin tacks on the race track so that all the drivers will crash, which would push up the viewing figures.
There is no problem with there being rain storms during races, so long as they happen naturally. I must say that I was very wary of Ecclestone’s idea of timing the Malaysian GP to coincide with the daily downpour in Kuala Lumpur. That was a was a pretty low trick and hinted at desperation. It would have been so much wiser to have invested some money in proper scientific research to work out why it is that there is overtaking at some circuits and not at others. Clearly Hermann Tilke has no idea how it works as he has produced a series of tracks at which overtaking is almost impossible. These days he is copying the great corners from other tracks hoping that this will work. One has to ask why he is still employed… There has to be a scientific answer to the problem and once that is defined then the circumstances need simply to be replicated and there will be no more trouble with overtaking.
If this kind of thinking is allowed to succeed then we are moving down the path to the destruction of all credibility in the sport. In which case it would be best to cut corners and get down to serious circus competition, such as has been suggested in recent days on the Internet, following the troubles of F1 in Bahrain. If that is what people want then that is fine… but I am not going to report on rubbish like that…
joeblogsf1 
As is so often the case Joe you are bang on. However I do think that BE brought up the sprinkler idea (and not for the first time) because there was not much F1 news at the moment.
As for seeing the back of Formula One and FOM in its current guise: I really hope so. The quality of the field in the past three seasons has been a testament to the talent that is available when teams don’t have to resort to pay-drivers. I’d hate to see those days come back for good.
I can’t help thinking the movable rear wing is already a step toward this dystopia. It’s just all becoming a little bit false…
Love the picture – that’ll be the only time this season we’ll see the Mercedes out in front…
Aren’t compulsory Pit Stops a bit artificial?I remember cars starting and finishing on the same tyres no refuelling either.
What I will find interesting is what happens when three cars enter the passing zone will both chasing cars be able to use the trick wing? And how safe will that be? Also where will they put the zone at Monaco?
Whilst I think Tilke might deserve part of the blame, he certainly doesn’t deserve the whole blame. Tilke and his team have to work within the guidelines set down by the FIA. Basically the slower the corner, the less runoff required, and the closer the barriers can be.
The overtaking problem extends much beyond the track design. To solve the problem I think the sport needs to have a proper look at all the aspects. Some blame should be dished out to the car designers, year after year they design cars that cannot travel within a second of a car in front; maybe they need to stop assuming that their car will always be at the front, and some blame needs to be dished out to the tyre suppliers (past and present), if they design a tyre that leaves chunks of rubber all over the place, of course that’s going to significantly affect overtaking opportunities.
Finally maybe the FIA needs to introduce a control braking system, that is less effective than what’s on the current cars.
The best way to improve overtaking is to bring back manual gearboxes, a clutch pedal and no power steering; keep it real.
WELL SAID !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And thank you.
Joe –
We were struck by the wrestling similarities in F1 a while back and wrote this:
http://www.britsonpole.com/opinion-what-f1-now-has-in-common-with-professional-wrestling-post3761
Of course, back in those pre-Crashgate days we never thought that a competitor in an F1 race would voluntarily take a dive to fix the result in the way the WWE does… how naive we were!
No need to approve this comment if you don’t want to – I just wanted you to see the linked story.
Andy
BritsOnPole.com
Joe,
You are certainly correct that the “rain” idea is rubbish. It was astounding when Pirelli chimed in that it might be a good idea. Maybe for a county fair, or a circus.
You are also correct that there should be a technical analysis which shows why passing has decreased over the years. Could it be that the regulations aimed at equalizing the cars has an impact. Of course, it does. And, as time goes on without change, the performance differential between cars becomes even smaller.
There was much more action, cars had far different design philosophies and one car might excel in cornering where another excelled in braking. I seem to recall the first successful Lotus F1(first rear engine I believe) was described as being relatively slow in corners but had excellent acceleration out of the corner.
The move to tighter and tighter regulations is the problem not the answer.
Joe, you have hit the nail on the head. You have put into words what I have been thinking for some time now. I greatly fear the combination of introducing artificial means to improve the “show” along with the supposed need to create a “greener” sport will see the demise of Formula 1. If this trend continues we will soon be well down the path to just one more mindless TV sport designed to keep the masses entertained.
Poor Bernie. With every passing year, his ideas get wackier – or his comments become less obvious attempts at humour. Medals. Shortcuts. Hitler. Sprinklers. What next?
The man did an incredible job at getting F1 to where it has, but in the name of the sport he really needs to hang up his boots and hand over to the good woman he has intimated will come along to take over the helm…
“the share of the take will be more like 15 percent, rather than the current 50. ”
that reduction is a essential part of the arithmetic for agency deals. At the beginning, sure a attractive percent. That pays for the initial effort – after that, not much effort required.
By anyone’s reckoning, it should be 15% now. Ad agencies think 15% is their God – given right. Without doing anything. Unless you count training interns how to gouge. Oh, I work in this business. Better be careful. But i don’t owe them any, nor them me. I only like it if i have skin in the game, then i work for it. Just feels plain better. And i know the economics, they look like manner from heaven, if you work in some other fields.
Like pensions, the problem is paying out living wages to people who don’t work, and who are not old, and who have been donated capital assets. That’s where the pensions went here. Or maggie sold it all off. I speak as a lapsed Tory boy who wept when John Smith passed. Just reading Mandelson’s book. Why did he not speak when it mattered? He could have been so much more. Big companies too readily obscure inefficiencies. I prefer the protestant, small model, though i am actually catholic.
You may not be able to advertise jobs using my words (or process) with bias like I have. I always solved that by offering a share to people much older than me. That’s how i learn. But it’s desperate now, to get kids involved. Way of life stuff. And experienced guys are running out 😦
I love Monsoon. Liked to walk out into them, as they came across the horizon. In a car, no thanks, of any kind. All that plastic, no longer Faraday cages 🙂
Incidentally, i saw the second image, of “racing” tanks, elsewhere first. I don’t know how long it’s been kicking around, but would be nice to give credit.
No artificial anything please. Sport is natural.
yours,
– john
Excellent post Joe.
As a long time fan I feel exactly the same way on all points and I’m sure I am not alone. Having game-show like races with rain sections and shortcuts is not a sport.
I particularly like actually reading for once Hermann Tilke being questioned which for some reason is rare. His tracks have done nothing for F1 or racing in general he really shouldn’t have a job at all. Proof that he has no idea I guess is that his most recent tracks in Abu Dhabi and Valencia have been his worst and I can probably add the butchering of Fuji as well.
Thank you again
Why not have each driver’s helmet have an opaque visor that can be dropped remotely by the other teams for 2 seconds once during each race? This would mean that every driver would have to drive blind for 20 seconds per race.
The technology exists and it would add various different elements to the races: uncertainty of outcome; tactical deployment; offensive vs. defensive deployment, etc…
That would be really exciting and the strategy involved would be really neat – just like playing chess – or is it “It’s a knockout”?
FFS Bernie and others, can we just have RACING rather than all this BS?
PLEASE!!!!
Personally had enough of the antics. Once again I hope the people who are the essence of F1 break away and leave scrooge and his cronies in the dust to count their money.
The thing I fond the most interesting about that photo is the choice of teams presented. Ferrari, McLaren are obvious historical choices, RedBull and Mercedes (nee Brawn) are the last 2 WDC winning teams and then there’s Team Lotus.
Lets remember that they (in their current form) are an expansion team who are brand new to the scene. It does highlight how much the “Lotus” brand means to F1 followers. It is also telling that the livery used was the green and gold livery rather than the JPS. To me it says that when people think F1 now, the Lotus name is part of that again. And when they think “Lotus” they think green and gold.
I may be reading too much into a gag, but many things are said in jest…..
As to wetting down the track, I couldn’t agree more. If that becomes a part of this sport I will end my almost 30 years of support.
Stupid Bernie and his idea for sprinklers on race tracks. How about get someone other than Tilke to design tracks. Give Turkey, Valencia and China the flick and put a couple of ‘classic’ European tracks back on the calendar. What about bring back a race in Argentina?
I hope that last picture isn’t a taste of things to come for 2011, surely the Red Bull isn’t being overtaken by a Lotus, and is that Herr Schumacher leading the charge!
Well, Joe, it looks like you’re letting off a bit of steam there, so the hyperbole is a perfectly natural part of the process.
I have to say that you are spot on, though, and I’m glad that someone with some standing in the sport has raised his head above the parapet rather than continuing to be the sycophant, a condition that seems to afflict most of the F1 journos when it comes to Bernie (most notably, but by no means exclusively, Mr. Brundle).
There comes a time in a man’s life when he crosses a line between reality and fantasy. For mere mortals, such as myself, this often happens with the onset of old age and appears in the form of an inability to successfully deal with modern life and an obsession with the past. With men who have reached a high level of success, especially those who have achieved it from humble beginnings, it manifests itself in the form of a belief that he can do anything and get away with it. They believe their own hype and slowly descend into mere parodies of themselves.
Bernie has, sadly, reached this stage in his life. His eyes often display a look of bewilderment and his words seem more empty. Whereas in the past, this rakish, maverick approach seemed endearing, now it just makes him appear completely alienated from reality. He has a belief that he can say or do anything and the world will hang from his every word and cheer every action.
Bernie Ecclestone has done wonders for the sport of Formula One, but his heyday ended ten or more years ago. He has been on a downward spiral ever since. His behaviour over the Moseley affair was, at the time, bizarre, but looking back it shows how even then he had lost his grip on reality.
Smart men realise when their time is over. Bernie is clearly not as smart as people have given him credit for. It is time for Bernie Ecclestone to quietly slip away with as much dignity as he can salvage before the dogs really begin to salivate.
Thank you Bernie for the wonderful years. The king is dead. God save the king.
This seems like Bernie’s latest attempt to generate headlines. See his idea of introducing shortcuts last year as another example.
Can’t agree more with you Joe.
Why Herman Tilke is still the “weapon of choice” when it comes to designing racetracks is beyond me, and proof that his don’t work are presented time and again, with the likes of Spa, Interlagos and Suzuka proving that the old-school tracks remained with us for so long for a reason (Monaco obviously follows other rules ;-))
So long as we don’t accept that wings produce dirty air which will inevitably affect the car following thus hindering overtaking, we’re not going to get anywhere changing the rules. Not by banning double diffusers nor by reducing wing sizes. Underbody aero can be used to maintain an adequate downforce level and allow for overtaking (see IndyCar/ChampCar) but comes at the risk of cars flipping if the airflow is suddenly ruptured, so there is a very real safety concern there (everyone remembers the LeMans Mercedes Flips).
I don’t claim to have a solution, but surely the FIA has the resources to have this looked into, And surely, the FOM has the power to refuse a track designed by Tilke on the grounds of lack of ROI. But then the shiny green bucks call very loudly when a new venue is generated in a country promised a golden future like India and all common sense goes out the window…
I am truly curious as to how F1 evolves over the coming years and I hope and believe that once FOM have been somewhat dis-empowered, the true spirit of the sport might have a chance to shine through again…
Wait and see I guess
Bob
And it is for this reason that most people I have spoken to are against gimmicks moveable rear wings and KERS (KERS having slightly more merit as a relevant technology). The “using both sets of tyres” rule also falls into this category.
The fundamental problems are the cars and the tracks.
The downforce created makes it difficult for cars to follow each other closely. The overtaking working group must be blind if they do not see this. I know we want the best racing in the world, but we HAVE to models cars in such a way that following another car closely is possible. Clearly the cars have a major effect, an argument put forward on Pitpass “The 1971 Italian GP featured over 100 overtaking manoeuvres while the 1999 Spanish GP featured 2.”
Also the new tracks are severely lacking in overtaking opportunities and inspiration. Without wanting to draw in libel suits, I can only suggest that someone is benefiting from Tilke’s monopoly over new track design. Though clearly safe, they fail to punish drivers for mistakes, and are largely devoid of overtaking opportunities.
If F1 doesnt sort this out, I fear that its future is bleak. Last season was not exciting unless you are a statistician – the races were largely dire with a few notable exceptions. Without genuine excitement, core audiences will dwindle, and this will have a snowball effect with sponsors pulling out, new countries not seeing the attraction and existing countries looking for better terms.
Overtaking in F1 needs to be sorted and quick.
I agree wholeheartedly, Joe. Next thing you know, the drivers will be made to jump through fiery hoops, and add smoke generators to the back wings to make the cars look more spectacular as they go by; better yet, coloured smoke. Leave the friggin sport alone, quit tinkering with the rules, and follow what made Formula One the most interesting and compelling motorsport around: Combine the best driving talent, the most money, and the best engineering talent and stir. Race and see what they come up with.
Pithy stuff there Joe, one senses mild disapproval!
Bernie has always managed to split the teams before, brashly and crudely by offering Ferrari extra money, which has worked for him and Ferrari very well. Williams has caved in when threatened before. The new teams are perhaps less able to be assertive. So I think that whatever the outcome it will not be what the teams really want or what we think is fair.
I think the signs are that this will be the last flight of Bernie’s Concorde, though he will want to leave it set up in the same way for his successor.
But if CVC really want out, that will throw the whole thing up in the air. It may take a while to unravel the many layers of companies involved, who all seem to own parts of each other, with Bernie strangely holding only a minority in each but being in total control. His cleaners are now busy tidying up any loose ends before German courts and fraud squad get to them.
Surely a large part of there being no overtaking regardless of the venue, is because of the marbles building up on either side of the racing line. Anyone moving out to overtake immediately looses traction.
Why can we not have tyres from 1970s which wore nicely down to the canvas leaving dust which could be removed by driving over it a few times effectively cleaning the overtaking line. This happened in nearly every race. They sometimes lasted the race but often not, depending on how hard the driver was on them, nothing wrong with that. Many races ended with everyone driving as if on ice.
Now, as I wrote before, you almost need snow ploughs fitted on the front wings. I welcome the additional pit stops which will produce a far more interesting race, but see no prospect of any overtaking on the track unless there are areas in the right places clear of marbles. Still perhaps in the correct temperature the tyres will be better.
Way back when there used to be video racing games where the track was littered with logs, upturned trucks and other such debris. God help us if Bernie buys an Amiga.
This article is blatantly biased. The Mercedes tank is CLEARLY ahead of the Ferrari.
If you don’t know the French comedian Remi, you should look him up – he’s something of a genius. The below clip of him doing Mario Kart in real life is not far from what I think Bernie sees as the future of F1…
Sam Michael had an interesting point in his recent autosport interview. He said that chicanes are the death of F1, because you won’t be punished for defending your position, even against a faster car.
Anyway there are tracks with good overtaking spots (interlagos, hockenheim, spa), and tracks that are just great without great overtaking spots (monaco, monza, singapore). Then there is Hungary who just seems to throw up great races recently.
As to Hermann Tilke, he did a great job with turn 8 Turkey, and the Korean GP was absolutely fantastic this year. The jury is still out on that track, tho.
However. His other creations are abysmal. Even Abu Dhabi, a track design job where you have free hands and effectively a bottomless purse, and it still competes for the most boring track award? Alonso, one of the best drivers in the world, can’t overtake a rookie in an inferior car over almost a race distance? That track alone should be enough to never see a Tilke-track in F1 again.
As for the artificial rain. No way. Give us some decent tyres – not indestructable Bridgestones but not these horrible Pirellis either, and let them race.
Bernie is just being a troll Joe… filling in the empty gaps with noise….
Excellent stuff Joe – tell it like it is.
As ridiculous as the pretend rain is, the movable rear wings are very nearly as daft. Kers is OK as its potentially useful to the wider automotive industry and it can be used in defence and attack.
As for researching overtaking, they supposedly did! And the result was large front wings and small rear wings, making the front of the car a greater source of aerodynamic grip than ever before – hence vulnerable to being affected by turbulence. The movable front wings were a tacit acknowledgement that the fundamentals of the 2009 rulebook was inherently bad for racing.
The wings should be radically shrunk and that’s that. The real research is in years of racing across multiple formulas, surely you don’t need to do any more studies with all the data that’s out there? I blame the recent ineffective changes to the aerodynamics on the sport’s addiction to ad space and a need to justify all the investment ploughed into aero. Imagine going back to the board of directors and saying you are throwing your wind tunnel in the bin…
As for circuits, I’m so glad you echo the man-on-the-couch’s view of Tilke. How can one man and his company be allowed to ruin a great sport?
Can I believe F1 would be that desperate? Yes…
There’s clearly a sliding scale of desperation here. The high-degradation Pirellis are a little bit desperate, just a tad, but in the main I’m all for that in a sporting sense. The active rear wing is definitely borderline strong-desperation.
The artificially wet track is VERY desperate.
The shortcuts idea is the MOST desperate of them all.
So hey, what comes up smelling a bit desperate but a helluva lot more sensible in comparison? The medals idea…
“Clearly Hermann Tilke has no idea how it works as he has produced a series of tracks at which overtaking is almost impossible. These days he is copying the great corners from other tracks hoping that this will work. One has to ask why he is still employed…”
Amen to that. Time for someone else to have a go, in the interests of variety at the very least.
But as I keep banging on about, the track situation is realitstically only going to be solved if an Arab sheikh to say “we want to build a modern Spa-Francorchamps, money no object” as opposed to “we want to build a track that goes through a multi-coloured hotel, money no object” because I tend to believe that Tilke has created a “doomsday vault” of new F1 track layouts that will continue to be used for decades into the future.
To various, sorry, been raised several times,
Tilke is what my dad would have called a shoddy architect too fond of his protractor.
I’ve met plumbers with better understanding of rates of change in a curve*. And if you plotted out the bad plumbers’ work, to track scale, i bet that’d be more interesting to drive!
leaves me wondering how hard it would be to float a “cash shell” to bid up a track. You could do many tracks in the same space, an oval too. Make it through a forest.
– j
*curves are very interesting in liquid flow, analagous to getting cars through a bend.
YES. What you said in Article x10 Joe.
The faster the Shylocks of CVC/FOM are off the back of Formula 1 Motorsport, not claiming a rediculous 50% revenue rape – the better. 15% is far more sane and workable long-termm as a Managerial Dividend. The rest belongs to the financial health of those actually creating ‘the show’, and creating the future of F1. D-day is the next Concorde Agreement negotiations.
Pure Formula 1 Racing that follows in the steps of Tradition – YES.
Sideshow Racing like Super Mario Kart – Hell NO!
Tilke is desig ning tracks ion the Drafting Board within the safety guidelines that the FIA have in place. However, I wonder if he has any concept of building racing tracks corners with features to allow multiple racing lines? One would have to say he doesn’t. To be fair though, even if he did, the modern F1 car regs are not producing racing cars capable of taking advantage of such multiple racing lines very easily. Moreover, the current Pirelli tyres are also throwing off so much marbles off the main racing lines – so as to scupper any chance of using alternative cornering lines anyhow.
That right there is ‘the holy trinity’ of stupidities in F1 currently (new track designs, current car regs and current tyres). These are not in synch with each other at all. Straighten that out, and wheel to wheel racing with passing by the “skilled and brave” will follow.
JF
Same way I feel about the “overtake wings”, KERS, limited lap life tires and all the other gimmicks. If F1 cannot be interesting without that stuff it should die.
Sonny,
I disagree with you on KERS. It has great value for the automobile industry.
Probably off-topic, and non-wrestling fans probably have no idea what I’m talking about…
I would mark out for Vettel and Webber showing up in Australia with a Hulkamania skullcap and Ultimate Warrior facepaint.
Or for a Four Prancing Horsemen entrance of any kind.
Do you smell what the Rosberg is cooking?
I agree. Racing at night in Singapore is no more artificial than playing football in a stadium under floodlights.
But sprinkling the tracks (at random moments?) to spice up the competition is ridiculous. What’s next? Allow moveable wings with operation rules that benefit the overtaking car? Oh hang on…
As usual there is light and shadows.
I appreciate the push against Bernie’s quipps like the watering of the tracks. We don’t even know if it is meant as serious but if it is then it should be firmly opposed.
The other thing is this Tilke hating. Why do we have to read this mindless criticism which is completely unfounded. Track owners get the tracks from Tilke according to the brief they and FOM set out. If the owner specifies a great track like Istanbul park he gets it. If he is happy with flat 101 style rubbish he will get that as well.
Everyone knows it is not the tracks that are wrong but the amount of performance from aerodynamics. Once you push the aero in the right direction this problem will be resolved. The problem is that teams want to compete on aerodynamical solutions to ever changing aero rules. That is their desire and since they mainly controle the rules they get what they want.
Werner,
Nothing in the story was unfounded. Nor mindless. It is very clear and logical. If your argument was correct then there would be no overtaking at any circuit. But there is… Track design is a science and if a proper scientific analysis was done, it would establish how and why overtaking occurs. It would be no difference in essence to the work that was done on safety in 1994 when science was applied to the question of F1 safety, rather than using the previous “suck it and see” mentality. It may be a complicated formula, involving cambers, radii, asphalt quality, length of braking areas etc etc etc. There are a lot of variables, but this does not mean it is impossible to understand. Hugenholz used to have a theory that a fast corner on to a long straight and a slow corner did the job and that worked at Zandvoort and Jarama. Yes, times have changed and things are a little more complicated but logically one can design for overtaking, if one understands the fundamentals. Tilke and his people have done a couple of half-decent track, but the majority of them are not. I am not saying that aerodynamic changes would not help, but it is pointless to go back to the 1960s and try to claim that F1 is about technology.
Any blog post featuring Hulk Hogan, The Ultimate Warrior, and some really great PhotoShop work on those tanks gets my vote for BEST POST OF ALL TIME! Hulkamania must have ran wild on you, Joe, and I love the result.
A tank race? Awesome!!!
Confession time. I’m the guy who photoshopped the last pic (apologies to the photographer).
I found a copy of the original pic (grey tanks only) posted in another forum captioned as the Bahrain GP and I thought it would look better with team colors.
A lot of posters (here and in other forums) were asking why is the mercedes in front? Blame it on my lack of foresight. I had already colored the Ferrari, Red Bull, and Lotus before I’ve decided to color the tank in front.
Why is the Mclaren tank in white? My limited abilities at photoshop weren’t enough to make the tank metallic chrome so I settled for their white team colors on the backmost tank.
Why the green Lotus livery? I wanted to use distinct colors for each of the tank. Red and blue and white came out fine. One couldn’t see the finer details of the tank if I used black or dark blue. I would have like to use yellow from last year’s renault but the need to stay current made me settle for green. Besides, I like Team Lotus.
I only regret not coloring the armored vehicle (at the back) as the safety car. It totally slipped my mind until after I posted that pic in the forum where I found the original.
Consider this picture my lame attempt at humor. I made it hoping it will bring some cheer to my fellow F1 fans. I also apologize to any Bahraini citizen I may have offended. No malice was intended.
Gary Webster,
that was so cool.
– j
Honestly, if Bernie was ever in charge of a breakfast menu, bacon and eggs would consist of mint peas and yeast spread. He might be trying to raise headlines for F1, but it just makes the sport look wantonly stupid every time he does.
Andy from BritsOnPole,
Thanks for that. Until recently I spent the last four years living in a house full of WWE-addicts (I couldn’t stand the thing), and I could see the potential parallels myself, all too well.
Thanks also to Joe for letting that comment through. Good article too, as ever.
JMHO but it seems to me that the Teams all design their cars to be in front and run optimal lap times. Nobody designs cars with the idea of overtaking anybody. These team folk talk a good talk about overtaking but if you asked each one of them what they really want, it’s to lead from the front the entire race. The best proof of perfect aero design, engine performance, strategy, driver ability and pitwork is for ones drivers to never overtake anyone and not even see the others during a race.
Tilke isn’t the problem and sprinklers aren’t the solution. The Teams don’t spend mega millions to overtake. They spend it to lead. Period.
Cerino,
I absolutely disagree with you. Tilke is the problem.
One hundred percent agree with everything in that post.
That said, the last picture looks a bit awesome…
The big danger if teams demand more profits is that FOM will move further away from Europe to governments with big pockets to make up for lost revenue. We’ll get more Bahrains and Shanghais – boring tracks and empty stands. And as things stand, the teams can do nothing about it if FOM decides to take this route. All of which will kill F1 further in the process.
And on another note – we’ve said overtaking has been a problem for years. Why is it that people keep coming back to watch it again and again anyway? TV ratings haven’t really suffered any major drop in the last decade or so No wonder FOM doesn’t think there’s a problem.
Bravo!
Incoming cliches…
While I think Tilke tracks are a part of the problem, I also think it’s a bit of a red herring. The 500-lb gorilla in the room is the aerodynamic packages on the cars.
The cars have evolved a lot over time. Aero has become more and more the focus of squeezing out every last tenth. Surely it can’t be coincidence that the dirty air issue has become the paramount issue regarding passing.
Get the cars back to relying on mechanical grip (and manual shifting, etc.) and I’d wager we’d see a dramatic increase in passing.
Bravo Joe!!!! BRAVO!!! This article should be emailed, faxed, couriered, flyered and painted in the sky wherever there is an F1 fan, team or exec. Superb!
I really hope the teams are united. I am tired of Bernie and his band of pirates and how he runs and pillages this sport. The racing was so much better in the 80s through mid-90s. It has declined and declined since. This sport can be so much better, particularly that it is the pinnacle of motorsport. Don’t even get me started on Tilke tracks.
There are so many smart people on these teams that design and strategy these cars and races and courageous drivers….it is time to really showcase that….not how much money goes into the old man’s pockets, and how much they can suck the masses out of money. I just looked at the tickets for the Montreal F1 race in June….$540 US for the same seats I had last year….what a joke. The fact is, the teams can run a breakaway series themselves. That is a fact. Luca di Montezemolo is absolutely correct in that statement, and Bernie knows this, but he acts the bully and swings a billion dollar club around with reckless abandon. Down with the old man. I hope his reign of error ends after this year and he can go hang with his bud Flavio in Corsica and count money and supermodels, because I think, that is all he cares about, certainly not F1.
Spot on Joe!!!
The racing back in the good old days was awesome! I wish we could get back to that.
I always know that Bernie has his meddling hands in every last bit trying to screw it up even worse.
Spot on Joe. There is a lot of meddling with F1 sport to keep it viable but we need to be vigilant that changes aren’t being dropped in that contrive results.
BE also needs to understand that there will be no new fans if the sport is too complicated. If you can’t fit the basic rules on the back of a coaster then you’ve blown it.
Fastest possible cars with world’s best driver’s racing. Everything else is diluting the sport.
Look at the 100m. Should the olympics lob marbles onto the track to spice it up?
Bernie should retire and use his genius to revamp “Its a knockout”.
It’s a VERY well written piece Joe and I agree with EVERYTHING you said BUT when a push comes to a shove Bernie always seems to come up smelling of roses and leaves a bitter after taste in everyone’s mouth.
The F1 group should have been kicked to the kerb long ago.
Joe
Nail hit squarely on the head. I first became interested in motor racing when a pitstop meant you were delayed or occurred in sports car races. We have the likes of Gordon Murray to thank for re-introducing pitstops into F1 races to make the BT50 (?) more competitive in 1982. So Bernie adopted that format in order to enliven proceedings in the ’80’s then reintroducing compulsory pitstops for tyres, then for fuel, then for tyres only, then reintroducing refuelling, then banning it, then introducing KERS, banning that and reintroducing it this year. Now we have movable rear wings (another stupid idea) and now serious consideration given to installing sprinklers. Ok now who is going to pay for that? The circuit owners can’t afford it as they get nothing apart from the gate less some amount paid to Mr E, no doubt. Anyway has BCE forgotten that the best races happen when the race starts wet and then the track dries, witness Melbourne last year. If F1 gets any more artificial then it has become World Champioship Wrestling in my book and will return to being a minority sport that I won’t follow.
Well said, Joe!
I think it was Patrick Head who, when asked about the ‘sport’ answered,’not been a sport for a long time!’ I gave up on race days when Stow Grandstand seats hit £20!! I found practice days far more entertaining and the same is true today with Qualifying, as it’s then that they are really on the limit. Race day really is about razzmatazz and glitz, yes we get some good, if not great racing occasionally, especially when we gat the weather to throw a curve ball. However, tinkering with this and that is just that, Tinkering. To make a real difference, one has to vastly reduce the down force and the wings or, get rid of so many of the restrictive regs and let the engineers and designers let rip.
I’ve always looked at Grand Prix/F1 as R&D and that can be fascinating but will not entertain. I just watch qualifying now and then look forward to watching MotoGP. Real racing that moves you and gets the juices going.!
Joe, are you please able to set out for us how what you say re the new Concorde agreement and the teams wanting a bigger slice, will change over previous concordes.
Also seem to recall FIA sold BE a 100 year lease on TV rights etc ? How will this affect things ?
Thanks
Kevin H,
The Formula One group owns the TV rights to the FIA Formula One World Championship for 100 years. But what is that worth if there is not a deal with the teams?
Artificial rain, Baharian August race and medals are some lead balloons that have been floated by Mr. E. Fortunately there are people in F1 pushing for relevant changes.
The new engine rules in 2013 should get F1 back on track for being the breeding ground for innovative development that is transferable to road cars. KERS (whether it be battery storage of energy or flywheel harnessing of energy) and turbo charging (gas saving but delivering power) will be continuation of transferable technology. The 2013 engine rules should also attract major car manufacturers again (i.e. VW).
Hopefully, the racers and astute business minds will steer the sport and Bernie steps away from his leadership with grace versus being forced out by disgruntled teams, fans and sponsors.
Spot on!
Wrestling is just one example of what “entertainers” can do with a sport. We all know certain racing series with lots of artificially introduced equalizers (or whatever) to “improve the show. Hell, they have even spoiled nordic ski racing with all these crappy mass starts-a-likes where top 20 guys postpone all racing to the last 1 km (no matter what the distance), and in the end the guy who had been sitting behind the others and resting more than the others wins.
Unfortunately, the undiscriminating audience is larger than the gourmet one, so the danger of entertainers taking over is very serious.
Joe, You are certainly one of the opinion makers here, so let’s hope your voice is heard not just among the F1 fans, but among the decision makers as well.
I think i just can’t forgive Tilke for being involved in diverting Hockenheim away from Jim Clark’s memorial spot, down the straightaway amidst the trees. We may thankfully live in days of relative safety, but that was a very emotional spot to see drivers racing past, and i imagine many drivers understood this.
I’ve thought about this with a cool(er) head since. I’m sure the guy *can* do better. Put it this way, there’s so much at risk for a track, in the late Bernie era, so much expense, so much dependency on local governments, that i think committees get involved.
Committees make me more angry than Tilke. I had just one brief run in with a local govvy committee. It was to provide an emergency dental service in central London. I dragged into the mix a bucket load of distribution, traffic and other stats. That had got real attention. That was but a fraction of the work just two of us piled in with. They walked off with the idea, and one of the committee members got the contract for themselves, so far out of central London as to be useless. We might have been too ambitious, it might have been public versus private arguments, no love lost there, it might have been relative age. There was certainly some angst against the public school boys who were us. But there was never an explanation given, of any kind. All this, because my dentist friend had been presented with a girl with smashed teeth from an accident, late at night, she just begged in agony, he was private practice, and he decided to try to do something about this. A&E had been unable to help, just no-one on call. Someone axed the television exposé of that. We did get paid, for time, on a pro-rata, not a consultant’s rate, but nett nett were out of pocket. That wasn’t the point we were annoyed about.
I’m better off slagging myself. I feel sickened to this day i couldn’t swing that. Naïveté. It took rather a long while for me to grow up, i think. Many of my recollections have been buried for too long.
– j
This one for Gary Webster, especially,
Baron von Münchhausen.
Some men drift into fantasy, because reality becomes too silly. Some blow their own minds. That’s called the thousand yard stare, and is the most frightening thing i think in life.
But even Münchhausen, in the stories, would come back to reality, from time to time.
Even before Gilliam made Doré’s caricature into a wonderful film, i used to joke that i would save my sanity for later, and not worry much inbetween. But hard reality does snap amost anyone out of it. Going quite crazy is for some just a holiday. There’s a perfect explanation of this in “They Might Be Giants” with George C. Scott, in the only performance of his – to my mind – which rivals “Patton”.
very best to you all,
– john
How about only 4 people to work in the pit lane, no radio link to drivers or engine / systems management, no wings or under car aerodynamic aids, ‘manual’ clutch / gear change and just let the teams and drivers race.
@Werner
It is hardly the teams faults that the current focus is on aero when engines are frozen and tyres are standard. Heck, even weight distribution is standard these days.
Mr. Mosley did a great job ensuring that F1 research is largely useless for the automotive industry when he killed engine and tyre development. Ironic, since he mentioned relevance in every other sentence.
Joe,
if you turn this around you arrive at a proper point. Why do other racing cars like saloons or sports cars overtake on all F1 tracks while it is impossible for F1 cars?
The answer is that F1 cars rely on aerodynamic performance enhancers that have gone wild.
Just look at traditional tracks that have low overtaking numbers like Monza or Imola which are not made by Tilke and the truth is obvious. Same conclusion is evident if you look at the overtaking numbers from the early 80’s when cars had a lot less downforce.
Imola is a good example to show another reason for the lack of overtaking, the track safety standards introduced after 1994. Until the Senna and Ratzenberger accidents Imola was quite decent for overtaking. Since then the chicanes have killed the action. The reason for this is that huge run offs are required at all passing spots. But not all tracks offer the space needed. And that goes also for thracks that are created with realtively tight and flat spaces on artificially claimed ground like Abu Dhabi.
You add the desire to create great visibility from all grand stands and a lack of elevation that helps the designer to play games with camber and you end up with bland tracks where the owners had not enough passion or dollars to push the compromizes towards racing friendliness.
People who deny the obvious don’t think enough about this problem hence my mindless moniker.
Werner,
That is all fine (although I think the mindless remark is rather rude) but all you are really doing is advocating is the argument that Tilke is capable of designing circuits for other forms of racing. We are talking about F1, not tin-tops. I accept your point that the F1 cars are partly responsible, but the tracks are largely to blame for the problem.
John ( other John )
Keep it on topic. If you have to rant do so elsewhere . This is a forum on F1.
We all have our own barrows to push but I come here to hear joe’s and his well informed readers spout about motor sport an F1 in particular. Keep it topical.
Does any one else agree?
Mr.E says things that on the surface seem a bit bizarre, but they hit the mark, and that is to keep F1 in the news.
OK some people have knee-jerk reactions to them, but at least it’s not the artificial joke that’s IRL, that really is turning into the ‘It’s a Knock-out’ of motor sport.
I’ve had a little go at Tilke designed circuits in the past and there is some merit in all the comments to your article. I’d like to throw my two cents into the mix with regard to car design and the question of artificial rain.
In respect of car design I’d like to point out that F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor sport and innovation therefore must continue rather than reversion to manual gearboxes, etc.
The beauty of F1 innovation is that the mechanical/electrical elements find their way onto road cars eventually and are of benefit to us regular drivers. The aero elements are designed in a manner as to make the air flow over the car and reduce drag, Ideally from the manufacturers perspective I would assume that the design would also attempt to reduce the slipstream to make the car as difficult to overtake as possible.
I am not a fan of the constant attempts to spoil the sport through the reduction in engine sizes and the curtailment of aerodynamic efficiency – perhaps the “greening” of the sport should take place through fuel and engine innovation rather than curtailment in engine sizes.
I think the funniest comment came from Ferrari when they pointed out that they didn’t have any 1.6L engines – Funny cos it’s true!
On artificial wet racing I’ve made the point before that we have enough locations where the weather is such that wet races are likely – Having said that I’m also of the opinion that the Tilke circuits in Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Turkey etc. are unlikely to ever see a really wet race (apart from last year obviously)and therefore I think there is some merit in providing for a potential “wet” track at some point during those races.
I don’t think it should become standard that at some point the race will go “wet” but there is room for the odd manufactured “wet” race.
Is Formula 1 _that_ desperate?
Well in some sections of F1 yes, it is. But as a whole, I am not sure.
The problem is one of demographics. When I was a boy, and the Grand Prix rolled into Adelaide at the end of spring it was something for everybody and anybody. It created a long lasting impression and created a life long fan of the sport.
But ‘kids today’, can their families afford to take them to a F1 race? Can they get the kind of access I got as a kid? And is the event itself (the bit with the f1 cars not the sideshows) quite like it was in the late 80s?
I’m not sure it is. A lot of it though is down to the vampire squid that is Bernie and his masters, CVC.
They have sucked so much out of the sport forcing the price of tickets and hospitality to skyrocket. It means that people have to watch predominantly on TV.
Races are also now held largely outside the traditional heartland of F1, which is fine if there was growth outside of those heartlands. But with Singapore excepted this does not appear to be the case.
You can watch F1 on TV and be interested. But in order to become a die hard fan you need to hear the scream of engines, feel your chest vibrating to the thunderous roar of the starting grid. You need to feel F1, not passively spectate it remotely.
Bernie and CVC have stolen that from one, perhaps now even two generations of potential F1 diehards. The result of the myopic and cynical exploitation of the sport is starting to become manifest and sadly that is why we are hearing about such desperate and intolerable measures from the sports leadership.
F1 mortgaged its future (young fans) and now is prepared to sell the last thing it has left (its soul) to try and somehow make up for it.
I’m being a bit dramatic, but the fact remains, F1 has not encouraged enough young fans in the past 15 years. And the result of that is now becoming apparent.
Grrrrrr, this whole debate really annoys me. Grrrrrrrrrr
There is nothing wrong with F1 as it is. Saw some numbers a while back that showed that there is no less over taking that there was before.
The call for more over taking are from the same mentality that created WWF, etc in the first place. Must have more bang, etc, while missing the subtleties that “experienced” fans get in to. Its like seeing a footie match and complaining of a 0 – 0 draw, no matter how much skill is on display to get that 0 – 0 draw.
This whole debate is mad, unless there is a good reason F1 needs WWF minded fans. Maybe it does, I dunno.
What I do know is that we will have boring races, we always have. In my experience, most races per season are fairly “boring”. That’s why we all have in our minds a few “classic” races. But for an educated fan, there is normally something going on that is interesting to follow.
And, excuse me, but haven’t we had a 4 year run of absolute classic seasons? So why are were even talking about boring F1? Before that, we had some dire seasons. But many fans would say those seasons were exciting too. Why are we taking about this? I truly don’t understand. What is this “boring F1” than needs “fixing”.
Lastly, I have this ‘orrible feeling that this season will be a bore. What worries me is not that the season will be boring, I can live with some boring seasons, but there will be this exact kind of nonsense introduced as a knee jerk reaction.
And if that happens, I’ll be really “grrrrrrrrr”!!!
If we must find fault with F1, I think its more about the car / driver relationship and professionalism than the tracks. But, then, it is so much easier to point a finger at one single man, Tilke, than to point at hundreds of fingers are the guys who make and drive the cars. Lets face it, Tilke is not responsible for really boring tracks like Monaco.
I would love to see a race at Portimao which looks like the best circuit built for a long time. Whoever designed that knows what they are doing. It wasn’t Herr Tilke was it?
Richard Wilson,
No it was not Tilke. I absolutely agree. It is a great facility. Unfortunately someone has to pay the race fees – and that means there has to be government help.
Joe,
There have been a number of comments regarding designs made for overtaking – much easier said than done. It is natural that aero designs will be most effective running in clean air. The idea of a 600 kg auto generating upwards of1500 kg of downforce suggests that the near field turbulence is going to be considerable – consider that a 75,000 kg aircraft following a 100,000 kg aircraft on final approach, when the wing configuration is set to maximize lift, can be overturned if it encounters the organized wake turbulence you can see this is not a trivial solution.
It isn’t exactly logical to try and modify a design that is most efficient at following since it most likely will not have the performance to stay in front if it can get there.
That being said, the back and forth mentioned earlier over pit stops, moving wings, fixed wings, etc. and the attempt to stifle innovation make a solution even more difficult, if not impossible. If a variable configuration were allowed without restrictions, it would be possible to at least research solutions for near field turbulence encounters. Without freedom, designers have their hands tied.
Congratulations to you Joe,for having the cojones to say whay a lot of people think.
Its time for The Dinosaur to become extinct,and hopefully the whole show can get a leg up once his thumb of control is removed.If that happens and the ridiculous hosting fees are reduced,then perhaps some of the new world circuits such as Portimao in Portugal,Aragon in spain,or the Gotland Ring in Sweden could host a race.
I agree completely with Aaron James as to F1 having reduced its potential fan base by pricing itself out of reach to many.A friend of mine is holidaying in the UK during the summer,and is planning to go to Silverstone for the GP.He’s as been quoted £640 for the 3day pass.Thats a huge amount of money,even in the UK.
The time has come that F1 started encouraging spectators to become fans by making it easier for them to see the show,instead of trying to be an exclusive party for the elite few.
Oh and to John (Other John).
What are you smoking,dude?
We’re here to talk F1,not all this rambling,random stuff you’re on about.Please consider your posts a little more,and keep them somewhat vaguely relevant to the subject at hand.
I agree that the sprinkler idea is beyond absurd and would turn the sport into a joke but disagree about Tilke tracks.
Sepang is great and features passing and the drivers love it.
Same is true of Turkey.
The Bahrain track before the modification we saw last season was good.
The revamped Hockenheim is excellent.
Shanghai isn’t bad. Same with Singapore.
Korea, the verdict is out, we need more time and races there.
Yas Marina seems to be a dud but then so are some old circuits, like Barcelona.
Valencia is horrible.
We barely see passes at Monza these days, or the modified Imola, Barcelona, etc. unless there is rain or tire degradation. But overall, as more teams have been competitive we’ve seen more racing action in the last few seasons though the cars themselves are designed still to make passing very difficult.
Bravo Joe,
Racing was always entertaining, at least from my point of view Historically a driver and his car had to conquer the physical aspects of the track, the reliability of his vehicle and the other drivers competing against him. It was also a “run what you brung” and that defined your competitiveness.
As technology progressed, the gaps increased, the money required increased and the racing was not the same. Soon aerodynamics defined alot of what you could and could not do and ways to save the “show” were contrived to “increase competiveness” and keep fan interest. Passing was deemed as extremely important to break up the parade of cars.
Entertainment is the game now. DTM is a 2 make (soon 3 make) spec series. NASACR is a spec series with a template with no relation to the real world cars. F1 still affords some differenciation but they are extremely limited by the rules. To fill the coffers, all types of ideas are used to spice it up to fill the seats and the pockets of F1. F1 has to open itself up to innovation. Just some ideas; Tires should not be designed to last a complete race, basic durabilty and safety are important but that’s about it. Several compounds can be offered. Front and rear wings are open but limited to a defined surface area as viewed from above with no wing elements allowed to be hidden when viewed from above. Refueling should be allowed, but cars have to start with a full fuel load and the fuel cell size is limited so the car could run the complete race if they wished. Flat floor with no openings and two venturi openings at the back, with the venturis limnited to a specific area, shape is free, and so on….
This would bring back the innovation that makes it interesting for the real fan to watch without the need for crazy ideas as fake rain, etc.
Just a pipe dream.
First, Joe, have you been reading my mind again?
Second, why can’t people EVER see that there can be multiple causes to a problem, with each cause contributing to various degrees? “No, it’s not Tilke, it’s aero!” … “No, it’s not aero, it’s tires!” … “No, it’s not tires, it’s brakes!” … “No, I still think it’s Tilke!” Come on people, why is it so hard to see that everything in our world has multiple factors that govern how it acts?
I think we can all agree that, to varying degrees, the following factors can possibly affect overtaking:
1) Aerodynamics 1 – Reliance on downforce
2) Aerodynamics 2 – Intense turbulence/vortices shed from cars
3) Tilke circuit design
4) Low mechanical grip
5) Super-short braking zones with difficult brakes to modulate
Lets tackle each one:
1) Aerodynamics 1 – Reliance on downforce:
The reliance on downforce is a big one. If there was less aero grip and more mechanical grip, cars could follow closer (look at karting, MotoGP, FFord, etc, etc). Beyond that, current F1 cars are very very highly dependent on the front wing, which causes a massive loss of aero efficiency when following another car.
Proposed solution: make the front wing less effective. How? Single element wings (better for ads too!), simple flat endplates that do not divert air around the wings. Less downforce and therefore will become less of a key component on an F1 car. Also, make the rear wings less effective by making them single element as well, and disallowing the beam-wing. The beam-wing energizes the diffuser, causing more turbulence and the upper wing would not be able to run at a high angle of attack because it is inherently limited by what the air can attach to without the aid of a slot-gap to energize the flow underneath (quick explanation: multi-tiered wings still use the main, bigger element to generate most of the downforce, and only use the flaps behind it to suck more air under the main element to increase its effectiveness… therefore, removing those flaps reduces the ability to make a huge low-pressure zone behind the main element prevents that main element from generating additional downforce). Also, the less effective the wing is, the less of a wing-tip vortex it will generate, which will help following cars… this leads us to the next point…
2) Aerodynamics 2 – Intense turbulence/vortices shed from cars:
Drivers said a few years ago that no-one could get within one second of the Toyota because the turbulence was so bad. It is very easy to add little vortex generators on any part of the car, and for a minimal drag increase, you can substantially improve downforce (or if you are scheming, substantially ruin the flow field behind you to slow down trailing cars). If I were an aerodynamicist, you’re damn right I would make it hard for trailing cars.
Proposed solution: They’re already working on it… the 2013 rules have strictly limited tunnels. They will not have the same dirtying effect as the steep diffusers that are currently used with the flat-bottom cars. Another thing: make strakes and vortex generators illegal in the last 75% of the tunnel (I would consult with a third-party aerodynamicist on that one, since VG’s are good for tuning tunnels, but I would want to see where they could effectively tune the tunnel but not affect a trailing car). This, combined with single element wings would shift the downforce reliance to the floor of the car, which is less affected by dirty air (ground-effects cars in the 80’s could follow nose-to-tail with little problem, as could similarly set-up IMSA GTP cars). If 90% of the downforce came from the floor, and 10% from the wings (3% front and 7% rear), then following another car would only drop your downforce by 1 or 2%… Of course, CFD and wind-tunnel testing would need to be done to determine the best course of action, but I think this is a viable direction to pursue.
3) Tilke circuit design
Hot topic. You think passing is a problem everywhere? What about Kobayashi decimating everyone at Suzuka? I can guarantee that if Alonso came up on Petrov at Suzuka, he would have been by him in a lap. The issue is that at Suzuka, there are areas where if you go offline there is either an advantage or at least the disadvantage is minimized. That is a major reason why Tilke’s circuits provide very little overtaking, apart from drafting or push-to-pass drive-bys, and proof that Tilke’s tracks are definitely part of the problem.
Here is your semi-scientific analysis, using two tracks:
a) All the braking zones at Abu Dhabi, for example, are straight.
b) Some of the braking zones at Suzuka, for example, are curved.
c) Since the braking zone is curved, when you brake while turning, you cannot brake as hard, since you are effectively trail-braking (look up the traction circle and apply vector addition; you can’t brake 100% and try to turn, otherwise you exceed the limits of the tire and go outside the traction circle).
d) If you are passing at Suzuka hairpin, you can brake in a straight line, and therefore brake harder since you do not have to turn to follow the line.
e) Since you can brake in a straight line while overtaking, the overtaking driver has an advantage to the apex since the lead driver has to travel a longer distance and must turn while braking. This either partially or completely offsets the disadvantage of braking off-line, and allows the pass to be a successful one.
f) Since Abu Dhabi requires the driver to go off-line to pass, and the other driver can stay on-line AND brake in a straight line, the best defense is to actually hold the racing line as any other line is a major disadvantage. This essentially keeps the leading driver safe, unless they are tricked into trying to defend in the classic sense by taking a tight line on entry, whereby their line is compromised and any line that the overtaker chooses will at least be as good, if not better. Case in point: Kubica’s outside passes at Abu Dhabi, as well as Kobayashi’s pressuring of Button into a mistake there in ’09.
Conclusion and proposed solution for #3:
Design courses where the passing line would have an advantage. These could include:
a) curved braking zones where the overtaking line is straighter.
b) having support races that would lay down more rubber in overtaking zones (e.g. touring cars, etc)
c) S-shaped sequences of corners where intentionally going too fast in the first corner gives the overtaking driver a higher exit speed on a wider line which gives them the inside for the next corner in the S. Also, the added speed would allow them to get a nose on the leading car before even having to brake. This sequence would need to be spaced such that the fastest qualifying line would not extend to the outside of the circuit after the first part of the S before traversing to the other side of the circuit for the turn-in to the next part of the S, thus enabling the scenario above.
d) Further development of the S-shaped sequence could be to create a turn after the S in the same direction as the second corner in the S, so if the leading driver defends in the second part of the S, they are comprised for the third corner in the sequence, allowing the overtaking driver to take a wider entry, square off the second part of the S and shoot up the inside into the third corner of the sequence. (Sorry if that was hard to follow… if this was my blog, I’d do up some nice MS Paint diagrams!)
e) designing corners very roughly without exact dimensions so that when the course is built, there are inherent idiosyncrasies that allow for interesting lines and odd passing places to be found. That’s why many classic circuits provided amazing races, and why many new, more exact circuits are dull. Look at the Nordschliefe, Mosport, Suzuka, Sebring and just about any street circuit; they are all roughly designed and carried out, and all of them have interesting lines because the construction team just had rough instructions to follow… yet they all have amazing passes and great races.
4) Low mechanical grip
In 1993, they made the tires narrower. In 1998, they grooved the tires. In 1999, they even added another groove to the tires. In 2009, they went back to narrow slicks, and the racing improved slightly. When did F1 have the most passing? When tires were really wide. Drivers have been arguing this for years… why not listen and give them wider, stickier tires? After all, they are the only ones that have the experience of being behind the wheel and trying to pass the other cars. Aerodynamicists and engineers only have simulations and descriptions from the driver to go on. Beyond that, wider tires create more drag and allow for better drafting!
“Oh, but what about rain races? You have the same downforce but much less mechanical grip!”
That flawed argument leaves out a few major details. First, grip levels do not drop uniformly; the grip on the dry line drops much more than off-line, allowing the overtaking driver to reduce the disadvantage of driving off-line to pass, as both the lead driver and the overtaking driver are off-line (see #3). Second, since the leading driver cannot drive on the dry-line, there is a huge gap on the inside of a corner that the passing driver can take advantage of for the pass, which would be otherwise unusable if he was driving alone (it is a slower line to take, but is effective in just getting past the leading driver, and in that case position matters more than time). Third, the talent shifts from hitting your marks perfectly for an entire race, to hunting for grip every lap; the driver that can find the most grip on any part of the circuit will be the fastest and can gain an advantage on other drivers. Finally, there are multiple lines that can be taken in the rain, so the aerodynamic wake can be avoided without a major loss of mechanical grip, as in the dry where there is only one line. THAT is why rain racing is interesting, NOT because of the lack of mechanical grip. The circuit becomes a weird mystery that every driver must re-learn to exploit.
5) Super-short braking zones with difficult brakes to modulate
All I can say here is go back to steel rotors. They’re cheaper and they work very, very well. Just look at Zanardi’s switch to steel rotors and Ferodo’s best pad; he was just as quick as he was able to modulate the brakes better, even if there was an increase in weight. The braking zones are
Conclusion:
If all of these areas are remedied, then passing will increase. It will still be a challenge, but you won’t have to resort to gimmicks in a lame attempt to make things interesting.
KERS should be retained, but it should not be a gimmicky “push-to-pass” novelty, but a full-time part of the drivetrain (I believe this is what will happen in 2013, but it should come sooner!). Push-to-pass belongs in Mario Kart, not F1 (as I have said many times before, and Karen has also said above).
The moveable wing is also a gimmick, and wouldn’t be needed if the cars and tracks were redesigned to allow more overtaking.
Aside from the gimmick aspect, these measures will only produce boring passes that consist of mere drive-bys. Is that exciting? Watching someone press a couple of buttons and drive by another person? Certainly won’t make me jump out of my seat. I saw 60+ lead changes in the Daytona 500 that consisted of drafting drive-bys, and the only time I jumped out of my seat was on the last lap when the drive-by was BLOCKED. It wasn’t even a pass that got me out of my seat. …and this is what F1 is aiming for?
Mandatory stops are also a gimmick, as was refuelling when it was introduced in ’94. What was the point? Also, mandatory stops only limit possibilities for strategy; if Pirelli really wanted to make interesting tires, there would be two compounds: the first would last until the last 10 laps, and the second would only last about 15 laps. Do you stay out and try to stay in the lead, or pit with 12 to go and try to pass the leader using super-softs to make up the time lost for the stop? THAT is interesting… not tires that fall apart after 15 laps.
I won’t even get into the fake rain, shortcuts, medals and other crazy ideas that Bernie proposes whenever news is slow or focusing on a subject he doesn’t like (e.g. politics in Bahrain).
Final word: Make the cars less aero dependent, but also shift that aero dependency from the vulnerable wings to the less-vulnerable floor. Give them more mechanical grip so they can follow closer. Give them steel brakes so brake modulation is easier, whether off-line or on. Finally, race them on circuits that are either properly designed for passing, or at least designed in such a way that they aren’t perfect curves where each radius is determined down to the millimetre. Tracks need idiosyncrasies, a few bumps, weird lines, elevation changes (if you’re spending $150 million on a track, you can afford to move dirt around), decreasing radius corners, curved braking zones, complex corner sequences and maybe even a long straight for those who love drafting. Add all that together and you get a great race with cars that are still technologically advanced, just with their advancements shifted toward optimizing different designs.
Sorry for the length… hope at least a few of you didn’t pull a tl;dr! 😉
Making artificial rain is the same as forcing teams to run both tyre compounds during a race.
The teams are being forced to jump through hoops like a circus tiger would. The idea of adding rain is simply changing the shape of the hoops, temporarily.
They are both silly, in my humble opinion.
“There has to be a scientific answer to the problem and once that is defined then the circumstances need simply to be replicated and there will be no more trouble with overtaking.”
A scientific solution that will solve the problem once and for all? That would be nice. But don’t hold your breath.
Since we’re stuck with most of the tracks – not all of them bad, btw (not even all of Tilke’s are bad) – the first step should be changing the cars.
Love the tank photo. Of course the Mercedes tank would be out front, but where is the Renault? Must have been heading in the other direction waving a white flag!
Two words, Joe:
THANK YOU!
Thank you! I read this idea and thought it was complete idiocy. Why not grease the track with pig fat and call it the Lard Trophy? It would be entertaining, but it wouldn’t be F1, that’s why.
racerx.
Thank you for your post! Very joined up thinking and very well described. Sadly, that means that very few on here will either, a. read and understand. b. Agree. I do on both counts and heartily agree. We must be both old!
Oh bugger! I meant to agree with malcolm, the post below racerx. It’s me new bifocals!!
Ridiculous ! Might as well throw glass and nails out there! I’ve been an avid F1 fan for 40 years but I’m gone if they go-ahead with such an asinine idea.
Personally, on the subject of overtaking, I think people look back at the old races with rose tinted glasses. It’s always been difficult, but that’s why it’s exciting when it happens. Undoubtably the current design of cars and tracks could make it at least more possible, but crap like short cuts and “wet” races makes a mockery of the sport. If they introduce sprinklers, i’m outta here!! I’m gobsmacked that Herbert came out in support of this.
The moveable rear-wing is dumb too (at least BE agrees there!). Not only because of the falseness of racing it produces but because at the same time they are trying to reduce cost they introduce whilst banning the f-duct that did the same thing and was piece of engineering brilliance.
The idea of medals also gets my goat. The idea that people don’t race for anything other than 1st is ludicrous! Of course they want to win, but some of the best racing comes from lower down the field, battling for the last few points that make such a difference. I say, extend the points down to 20th, then every position matters more and you’ll see more racing. The assumption too that all fans are interested in are the teams at the front, there are interesting things happening all through the field, and if TV directors would learn that, we might actual see the all the overtaking rather than following one car out on it’s own all day whilst there’s actually a great battle going on for the minor places. Some directors are already doing this and the difference shows.
Bernie’s attitude is unfortunately summed by quotes like “We’re in the entertainment business”. No you’re not Bernie, you are a sport, and in your attempt to gain casual fans you will not only loose the real fans but turn the sport in such a laughing stock that it will become completely discredited.
As for the tracks, as just wish they’d pick the tracks based on the quality of race in can produce rather than asking how much cash you’ve got and introducing you to Tilke. For those moaning that monaco doesn’t allow overtaking, it doesn’t matter. If you make a mistake at monaco you hit the armco and that’s the challenge. Street circuits are fine if they punish ( eg Pau & Macau), but when the give you run off they take that challenge away and you end up with Valencia!
[rant over, sorry this is a touchy subject in my household!]
@malcolm
You only missed one thing out – how do we go about getting you in charge of the regulations?! Make it so!
@Joe
great piece that needed saying. Kudos sir.
@malcolm,
Great, well thought out comment. Looking at the problem from all angles. Totally agree with you on what KERS should be about.
Homerdog & McPete: Thanks!
I’m 26… but old at heart, methinks. Being Canadian, Gilles was my hero when I was young… that, combined with an intense interest in motorsport history spurned me to dig through my father’s books and when the internet showed up, I continued with my research there too. My education in Mechanical Engineering (and two projects that I did with CFD, one being the design of a multi-tiered rear wing) furthered my interest in aerodynamics…
However, I certainly do wish I could go back in time and see events like Nuvolari trouncing the Germans at the ‘Ring… and join in the laughter when he had to grab his own copy of the Italian anthem because the Germans were so confident that they only brought their own! 😉
Malcolm for President!
Gravelrash,
to be honest with you, explaining how i think Bernie gets it funny, via a few cinema references, is talking about Bernie, not about the references. Or giving an example of how committees balls things up, was explaining some experience of this, so it was not to come across as a random swipe, or epression of unfounded prejudice. That was precisely to alance the rash words i wrote about Tilke. I did go on about pensions, but that was meant to illustrate what happens when middle men get their money too easily, which was directly a point i thought Joe made, so i expanded just a little on commissions.
If you pointed out exactly where i went on a off topic rant, i’d be happy to seriously reconsider my approach. It’s difficult to reply to a general complaint which offers no specific maladies or remedies.
I actually know the areas where i mean to shut up in future. But you did not identify them. Since i am not an expert on F1, though a lifelong fan, and as a fan, this interest of mine has origins in personal experiences, i thought it good to establish where my personal opinions come from. I also believe, or maybe you wish it otherwise in some general way, the whole point of this blog has been to bring to bear Joe’s wide experience outside F1, to the subject. That deeply attracts me, and i have tried only to suggest a few, admittedly far poorer, conexions myself.
Criticism i can take. I’m no stranger to very harsh criticism, almost always from people who know me well. I am not trying to negate what you think, just trying to understand what you mean.
I’ve got to be frank with you. If you only want Joe’s opinion, why read the comments? I frequently read the article and no further. I doubt everyone reads the op-eds in a newspaper either.
I am not saying “take it or leave it” or anyhing rude or personal. I merely think you did not make your point well.
I’m passionate about subjects to the point of what i realise can be perceived as irracibility. However I do not speak to offend. So i welcome criticism which helps me understand where i went wrong.
Yours,
– j
I said this, “I actually know the areas where i mean to shut up in future. ” and i am serious about that. I had a visciously emotional winter, and i believe Joe, out of kindness, permitted me some solace that i might speak personally. I let this get out of hand, because i do think in very personal terms, or else i become impenetrably technical, because i seek and desire balance, which has been relatively rare in my experiences. This is a failing and weakness of mine. If this is a complaint, i see it clearly. If anyone sees greater misdeeds in my commenting, I invite and permit Joe to pass on my direct contact, if anyon individually wishes to do so. But that shall be the last burden i place on him, because if he does so, he does so under sufferance. I will really not continue to discuss what i scribble, as some metaphysical appendage or distraction to his website. I’m not being rhetorial, i like mirrors which do not flatter my ego. I just cannot promise i will understand everything everyone says, least not immediately. I would never be unfriendly, even if someone says something unexpected.
– j
Would it be naive to suggest that the core reason for the lack of overtaking in contemporary F1, and indeed over the last 15-20 years more generally, is simply the use of carbon fibre brakes?
John,
I read years that Williams actually tested with steel brakes ( a misnomer as they arent steel, but, manufactured from ductile iron ). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ductile_iron
The results obtained were that stopping distances did not increase, or, if they did , it was marginal.
Wrestling was seen as a bona fide sport?
Pro Wrestling was never a sport in the 1980’s in the USA. It had already become entertainment by then. It is true that the entertainment aspect became more commercial with more focused marketing than ever before, specifically under the McMahons. The increased success was probably most attributed to the rise in Cable and Satellite Dish television and the ability of those media distribution channels to carve out their own little dedicated niche audiences. Simultaneously, individualized niche magazines were becoming the norm, each catering to a niche audience. Bernie has just capitalized on growing the F-1 niche and done a pretty fine job overall. The sport has evolved into being controlled by the entertainment powers for the simple reason that those folks have the greater influence in the sports governance. When the teams allow the sport to evolve into a parade of cars circling around a circuit, the interest by the sport enthusiast dies and the sport is no better than a glamoruous Fashion Designers show. As many of the commenters have illustrated, the sport of F-1 will be revived when the issue of overtaking is resolved and the fashion parades around the circuit discontinue. As Joe Saward points out, that will only happen when the grip of the promoters is subordinated to sports governing interest, but will that ever really happen?