The Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in Montreal has the highest levels of fuel consumption and brake wear in the Formula 1 season. This is because of its long fast sections and the need for the cars to then brake into quite slow corners and then to have to accelerate to top speed again. This means that with the current engines running at maximum speeds, the consumption is more than the regulations provide. The reason for this is that the rule makers wanted to have rules that pushed the engine-builders to find better efficiency. Until the engines are efficient enough to run the whole race at maximum speeds, the race requires fuel saving. If there had been a Safety Car early on, as often happens in Canada, there would have no whingeing about fuel saving because the cars would have had enough to race flat out, but managing fuel, tyres and brakes has always been part of the art of Grand Prix racing and if that is too subtle for the modern audience, which seems to require only instant gratification, then there are too choices: dumb down the sport and do what the audience wants, or educate the audience to appreciate what they are getting. You cannot always have wheel-to-wheel dices in the early years of a new formula because the technology is not sufficiently shared between the competitors and even then some tracks will always be poor for racing because they are poorly designed. When one has a promoter who does not believe in investing in anything and is frightened that new technologies will hurt its bottom line, it is hard to educate an audience.
Having said that the race in Montreal gave us an indication that things are beginning to close up. Ferrari arrived in Canada with a new version of its engine, which had been modified in various areas, rumoured to be the camshafts, pistons and the combustion chamber. It is believed that there was also a new blend of fuel prepared by Shell to suit the new engine. The word is that this produced a gain of about 30 horsepower. The problem was that Sebastian Vettel started 18th on the grid because of mechanical troubles and a penalty in qualifying. Kimi Raikkonen has not really been close to Vettel this year and so Ferrari’s ultimate performance in Canada was not as impressive as perhaps it should have been. Kimi also threw away third place by having a spin that allowed Valtteri Bottas to get ahead.
Looking at the pace of Vettel in the race, however, it is fairly clear that if he had qualified better, he should have been in a position to put more pressure on the Mercedes team and that would probably have pushed them into trouble with brakes and fuel and might have required different strategies. In this way, it might have been possible for Vettel to win, as he did in Malaysia, where the Ferrari was better able to use the tyres in the extreme temperatures of Kuala Lumpur. F1 is a multi-layered sport and those who seek only outright pace are missing the nuances that can be turned into triumphs. There is no doubting that the Mercedes are still better than the Ferraris, but the gap has narrowed. Honda is still going through the painful process of getting up to speed, but they will get there in the end. Perception-management is important and actually it serves the purpose of the company for it to be seen to be the element making the difference. So when the cars do start to win races it will be clear in the minds of the fans that it is the engine that has made the big difference. Instant gratification for a car manufacturer is not necessarily what it best in the long term…
The fact that Honda is having to work hard underlines a point that is often missed by F1’s critics. This is a hard game to win. You cannot just swan in and go home with the trophies. You have to be clever and motivated. Renault’s performance at the moment is not very good and one wonders whether this is down to the fact that the company cannot seem to make up its mind what it is doing. The top management seems to be interested in F1 only when they are being successful and not interested in digging deep to make that happen. At the moment, therefore, it is a waste of energy. In truth, Renault’s management of its F1 engine programmes has been pretty poor for years. They were multiple winners for multiple years with Red Bull and the company failed to use those successes properly. That is a management problem. One hopes that the company will get its technical act together and become competitive again because otherwise the whole programme looks to be doomed.
As to the lack of fight at the front between Hamilton and Rosberg it is clear that they were both managing the different elements and the margins to do more than that were limited. That shows you how hard it is and how high the level is. The mess in Monaco was useful in that it shows the extent to which F1 is a team sport. Drivers do go on about this and it sounds like PR pap, but the reality is that a victory is the work of a lot of people and if one element screws up, the win can be lost. The fact that these elements do not often screw up tells us that this is a great team in operation. It is worth remembering that there are a vast number of positive things about F1 that are often forgotten in the whingeing and the whining about what is wrong.
joeblogsf1 
You mean you didn’t notice it was a dull race
It wasn’t a dull race. It was a tense race. Suspense is a key to sporting entertainment. People watch dull football games all the time in the hope that one team or the other will score a goal. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t.
I completely agree.
Yes – this race was live on the BBC. Their Quad screen with added live timing, onboards and car locations tracker really added to the tension!
Sorry, but it was awfully dull – unfortunately like most of the races this season.
Tension comes from not knowing what might happen. Ok you could have a race without wheel-to-wheel action from start to finish but you can still be entertained if you just don’t know what could happen at the next corner.
Unfortunately modern F1 races are just to predictable. How many mistakes do we see the drivers making? In Canada, Kimi spun (which he blamed on the car), a couple of people maybe skipped a chicane and that was about it. These are supposed to be the most challenging cars in the world to drive, but the viewer gets absolutely no sense of that because they drive around like they’re on rails. They are supposed to be the most challenging cars in the world to engineer, but FOM seem to think we’re to excited about seeing some supermodel or other on the grid to really understand all that complicated stuff.
You can pretty much predict each race now. The qualifying order more or less matches race pace, so if they stay in the same order after the start they will just naturally spread out on track. Anyone out of position after qualifying (or pitstops) will make a series of motorway passes in the FIA-designated overtaking zones via DRS. Defensive driving doesn’t exist anymore, and with each DRS pass I see I actually feel my motorsport passion die a little bit. If you’re driving a Renault-powered vehicle you’ll get stuck about 1.5 seconds behind any other engined car. There will be a handful, if any, mistakes by drivers because the teams will keep them all driving to target lap times well under the limit to minimise risk. If we’re lucky, we’ll get an engine blow up just for variety.
Did anyone really think Nico was going to make a real attack on Lewis towards the end of the race? We’ve seen maybe 3 or 4 races across 2014 and 2015 where they’ve even been close, so the argument that “at least Mercedes lets them race” is moot.
Sorry but it’s all dull, dull, dull. There’s just too much great racing in other series right now (and series who aren’t trying to be everything to everyone, and are better for it). Roll on Le Mans.
I disagree.
/You can pretty much predict each race now. /
Oh, so let’s get back to Schumacher era!
/Roll on Le Mans./
Yeah, lots of overtakings on cars from lower leagues. What a great racing would be if you put F1, GP2 and FR cars together on track!
The whole of the Silverstone Six Hours was available on Youtube and there mid-race scrap between a Porsche and an Audi beat most F1 action these days into a cocked hat. Plus the director seemed able to show the sheer speed of the cars much more effectively than anyone at Bernievision.
So we’re coming to the conclusion that the race is as good as the director can show.
BTW you say there was one seeworthy scrap out of entire six hours? Sounds encouraging:)
Do the cars appear distorted when watching the race through your crystal ball?
If you think that was dull go back and watch a couple of seasons of the Schumacher/Ferrari era when we didn’t even have an intra-team battle to look forward to. Mercedes might have built a dominant car but they also understand that they have a duty to the fans to provide a race and so interfere as little as possible in the battle between Lewis and Nico. Thank your lucky stars the dominant car of the era isn’t red!
I completely agree, for some reason people have very short memories! It was a very tense battle and would have been even better with Vettel starting on the second row… if only!
I’m getting really bored of people constantly whinging about the races, as in fact they are so much better than 10 years ago.
Quite – and at least there’s a Brit in one of them (mind you I do admire Nico, who got a press last year. I mean, the guy’s really bright.)
I meant bad press. Blooming tiny i pads! Sounding like Hilda Baker now – “must get a little hand for this watch..” (this won’t mean anything for anyone born after 1970!)
While I agree F1 is strategic in nature, in previous era the onus was on the driver to manage his tyres, fuel, pace and engine – there was little the team could do bar stick a pit board out and hope their man caught the necessary details. In the modern era there is too much micromanagement to the extent that the drivers are simply pilots taking instruction from ‘mission control’.
Given the amount of data at the hands of the team, this makes the racing too orchestrated and reduces the elements of variability – something any sport craves. Had Lewis/Nico been driving in an era before this century, its likely that the team wouldn’t have been aware of the emerging issues with regards to brakes/fuel – so we may have witnessed a dramatic scene of one Mercedes car pulling over with brake failure and the other falling short of the finishing line as it runs dry. These dramatic retirements and ‘unknown variables’ of previous are few and far between these days – the scope for error is reduced which makes the racing too predictable.
I switched off my TV set half way through Canada after it was clear Bottas would keep Kimi at bay after the Finn’s spin – the order of the top 4 was sealed. In comparison, I was completely blown away by this week’s TT races. Seeing James Hilliar’s reaction after riding through a proper road race (none of this sanitized Monaco nonsense) and picking up 3rd place typified what F1 used to be about – the guy was emotionally and physically drained and couldn’t believe the risk he had just put himself through. That element of risk/reward is no longer apparent in F1 these days.
I totally agree, though watched the race (as always) to the end.
I agree with Bob, there is just too much data. Joe wrote recently that F1 needs heroes, I totally agree, but they should not be the Tech Guys. TV builds-up the man-to-man aspect of F1, then the show delivers the complete opposite.
This is such a pity as the current drivers have the race craft; if only they could actually be allowed to race.
+1 Bob B, your comment is amongst those that hit the nail squarely on the head. Well done for getting half way through. I didn’t even make the start… gave up at the point when EJ started brown nosing about a particular driver.
Yes, I saw Hillier’s reaction too. Impressive demonstration of a man’s amazement at his own courage. Can’t remember the last time I saw that from an F1 driver. Probably back in the early ’90’s.
Some are tired of complaints against ‘the show’? Or of people ‘not understanding the complexity’ of F1? Golly, I thought the whole point of F1 was to be mesmerized by the skill of man and machine. But, apparently, I’m missing the whole point. I should be dazzled by the technology, the systems development, the nuances of engine design, the techniques for ‘saving; deliberately fragile or restricted components, the insight of those accessing the datastreams, blah, blah.
*rolls eyes*
Get back to basics. Cars. Racing. On a level playing field.
Surely someone, somewhere has the intelligence to develop a simple, equitable and positive direction for F1? It’s not rocket science…. oh, hang on, at the moment it probably is 😦
Bob you have nailed it! Spot on. The sport needs hero’s not computer geeks. It’s drives like Senna’s in Brazil where he couldn’t feel his hands and arms anymore that inspire people to watch, follow and be amazed at these hero’s…..not contrived, mission controlled drivers racing within micromanaged ‘performance windows’ being instructed the whole way though to speed up, slow down, lift off, turn right, turn left…..if this is the future then why not have the Google Driverless Car Championship?.
If you want heros, may I suggest going to the cinema. There is a reason why high-end British engineering is still world class and it is not due to Batman. Formula 1 has always been about the race off track as well as on.
+1. We want to see Titans wrestling with car track and competitor! Think
Michele Alboreto or Nigel Mansell, who literally at points in their career – pushed the car over the line if it was needed.
You need to get out a bit Forza!
There were drivers who did that physically, not merely literally!
Hm, Simon Rockman. I hadn’t noticed it was a dull race until I saw twitter, blog comments and some media say so. I had had a race full of enjoying lovely in car footage of cars making overtakes, having moments, stupid mistakes, and indeed the notion that IF Hamilton would make a mistake, or would have issues with his brakes, etc, Rosberg really was able to stay close enough to profit.
Add in some “comedy moments” on the radio (Alonso not wanting to look amateurish, Stevens and Grosjean commenting their incident, some others), and it was a nice Sunday evening for me (on board footage in the confines of the track certainly helped give me that feeling).
I know you dislike external links but this is the view of another 4D reporter, who has also had the advantage of driving.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/33060280
Intrigue does not put bums on seats, or eyes on the box. As you correctly say heroes, undertaking heroic acts, is what excites consumers.
The IoM TT has it by the shed-load, but their names are not household items and their budgets are minimal. But they do take incredible risks that have kept one-dimensional fans entertained for decades.
Isn’t it true that even if the cars could run flat out on a tank of fuel they would then start with less fuel and gamble on safety car delays?
Possibly. I believe that some cars start some races with less fuel than regulated. Going with insufficient fuel without a safety car is pretty desperate.
Is the only way to stop fuel saving to mandate that the cars start with 100kg, rather than up to 100kg? Reduce it by 5kg a year to make sure the green side of it stays relevant.
Great to see you in Montreal by the way.
That would just result in a engine mode the “dumped fuel” down to the level the team calculated would give the fastest race time.
Well yes, but only to 100kg/hour which the fuel flow sensor measures, so hardly dumping.
True, but we are only talking about “dumping” 5 to 10 kg. 10 kg is a lot of race time.
Ah I see what you mean now. They’d run the first 2 laps in “dump” massively mixture rich mode to effectively get down to 90kg and then cruise the rest of the race. Kinda crazy that physics/the tyres work that way.
David Coulthard just wrote that ‘it’s faster to start with a lighter car and do a degree of fuel saving through a race, than it is to drive a heavier car flat out’.
The Beeb ran a piece claiming that in general it’s still going to be faster to start lighter and do some fuel-management than just filling the car up and running a maximum power throughout.
If there’s a freeze on engine development, though, how do any improvements to efficiency the manufacturers make get into the cars?
There is not a freeze on engine development. There is a freeze on what can be put on the cars. Development goes on all the time.
Ah. All becomes clear.
Thanks Joe.
Obviously the “instant gratification” people would not have enjoyed Moss in Argentina ’58 or indeed Monza ’59 or even Fangio in Spain in ’51. Drivers have been managing fuel and tyres for ever. Its a skill. Driving flat out all the way means far less driving skill needed and when the car is almost glued to the ground even less. I may have said this before but if the audience just want flat out speed, build a grandstand alongside the TGV, that runs on rails too. And no I do not decry progress but I want to watch racing drivers drive; man fighting the machine not the machine allowing the driver to be fast. It’s like having magnetic tennis raquets and a magnet in the ball. Very fast play but little skill. OK, moan over. Thanks for the post Joe..
Well said. Formula 1 is more than an sprint (100 yard dash).
The issue in the modern era is that the team manages all the variables. In previous era, as per the references to Moss and Fangio, it was 90% the driver who demonstrated their race craft.
Bob, the problem we have now is that since the advent of ubiquitous information technology they they don’t race in machines anymore, they “compete” in computers
You’ll be telling me next that fighter pilots should all be in Spitfires and that the modern fighters don’t count.
Hey Joe, Dinoman here! What draws more crowds, an Avro Vulcan built in the 1950’s, or a Eurofighter Typhoon? The Typhoon is incredibly advanced, but the Vulcan has Soul! That’s the difference….damn…slap!! Ok, back to my cave now……………
I have no idea but I know that air displays of all modern machinery attract the F1 folk
They’re all noisy buggers when they fly over about 10ft from the ground!
Air races use turbo-prop aircraft, not fighter jets. Why? Because otherwise the balance between man and machine is too heavily skewed towards the technology.
I don’t have any problem with F1 being a team sport but I do think the problem is that a lot of the ‘team’ is invisible to the public and some of it is non-human. I think things would be improved if the size of the team (on race day particularly) was considerably reduced, and it was much clearer to the public who was doing what and who was making a difference to performance.
Hear, hear – right now their is too much reliance on predictive and modelling software as opposed to humans making the right/wrong calls.
Patrick Dixon… absolutely, you don’t know the half of it ;-). Frank & Molly Gilbreth would have a field day.
Once again Joe, a good common sense post. I can’t help feeling Renault have been royally screwed by Red Bull. When they were winning they gave the impression it was despite having Renault power, now they’re losing it’s because they have Renault power. Horner gets away with blaming Renault at every opportunity, despite the fact that Toro Rosso are able to beat them with the same engine, I just wish he was challenged on this point more often.
I agree that it could be regarded as shameful of Red Bull in its treatment of Renault but hadn’t realised the lack of commitment by the top echelon there. So you could understand the disappointment of RB at this. I don’t think, however, public condemnation of Renault by RB is conducive to a solution. This is exactly what McLaren is desperate to avoid with Honda even taking the blame for not performing themselves when the chassis is being revered by many. Maybe here lies the difference with Renault and Honda and why Honda may well be able to succeed where Renault, so far, have failed?
I agree with your comment about red Bull and have said so before – they are being very disloyal to Renault as far as I’m concerned.
That said it is pretty obvious that the engine was letting them down last year and is this year – as well as the fact that the car itself seems to have an issue if its relative performance to Toro Rosso is anything to go by.
It might be something to do with siting of the microphones but the engine’s sound better this year on television and Honda sounds the best one of all – now they just need to make it fly – here’s hoping!
I guess we have different tastes. Telling myself that the drivers and teams are doing a great job of managing all these complexities while they’re going round and round without any jostling of positions just doesn’t do it fo me. And from the comments here and elsewhere I’m not the only one who is disatisfied with this kind of abstract show.
Try the BTCC then. F1 clearly isn’t what you want it to be.
I used to like the BTCC but the few times I have seen it lately it looks like a bumper car event. Not my taste. But then nor is watching Hamilton out front every race very exciting either at the moment.
At least there are more on track overtakes this year (and the four previous years) than between 1994 and 2009. OR do you think these years were dull as well?
I agree GP. I’m not in need of ” instant gratification “, neither do I need “strategy”, what I miss and what I would like, is to see a grand prix driver actually working hard to keep ahead of a rival….for those of you who don’t understand that feature of F1, and motorsport in general, just look out for people like Senna & Mansell, Alesi, Berger, Villeneuve J, Schumacher M, Hakkinen, Coulthard, Montoya, and loads more back to Peterson, Stewart, Rindt etc etc….no strategy except to keep the other guy behind for 200 miles. Neither do I need tyre stops except for a puncture or for rain tyres, nor fuel stops unless a splash and dash is needed, only pitboards for info and a man against another man and car against car.
It’s simple no brainer stuff that brings excitement and makes for a damn good day out.
If you want strategy and team work, go watch Countdown ffs!!
+1 Damian ….. that was poetry in motion ;-). There’s no way back my friend, I fear the wicked witches from the Eco and software forests have stolen our fun and excitement forever 😦
“what I miss and what I would like, is to see a grand prix driver actually working hard to keep ahead of a rival”
That is the icing on the cake, for sure. No argument there.
I think the point to be made, is that those moments will come even with this current formula given time and patience. We are only just into this new era, and people would have the rulebook scrapped and rewritten to try to increase the “show”.
But if they do that then everyone starts from zero and we are back in the same situation: a lack of parity and one team at the top waiting for the others to catch up. So I think we should keep the formula stable, and focus on promoting and educating the fan base as to what is going on.
I find it absolutely riveting right now, because I do pay attention to the stuff that is going on off the race track. And I feel it will be incredibly rewarding once those track battles start happening more frequently at the front, because I will appreciate all the effort and work that went into it.
Formula One is more than just a sport and entertainment for me. It is life lessons. It is education. It is politics. It is war. And this has always been the case. Strategy has never NOT been a part of Formula One. The difference is now more people are interested in the nuts and bolts of the race, and so you hear about it more. Perhaps that is a turn-off, especially considering that it is lacking what you need, which is the driver battles. I understand that entirely. Not everyone’s cup of tea.
But please, don’t pretend that in the glory days of F1 it was only about keeping a driver behind for 200 miles. Brundle even wrote a nice piece about how managing equipment has always been a driver task. Even in the days of manual gearboxes, you had to look after your shifts, reduce wear, etc.
I think people like you and I can have both the things we desire at the same time. We just need to get the driver battles back, and that will happen as the others begin to catch up.
*TL;DR
I appreciate that you want driver battles; so do I. I also want strategy. We can have both. Time/patience/development will close the gaps and deliver both.
Hi Dale, each to their own mate, I get your point, but ( and I can come out with any amount of battles over the decades I’ve been a motorsport fan and watched F1 ), if one takes Rindt vs Stewart 1969 British GP @ Silverstone, they were both firm friends and lived in each other’s pockets. They were not “enemies ” or involved in a “war”. They were great racing drivers and Champions, and knew how to race hard but fair. That GP is just one that stands out in 1969, how many GP’s have stood out in the last 12-15 years?
Rebooting to ground zero and making some real race cars, that not only look different, but are vastly cheaper to race, is only common sense as the alternative will be an empty Grid at some point in the not to distant future.
The “war” comment was more in regard to the way teams are. There is even spying.
I think drivers can get along fine. And I have a strong distaste for drivers who sling mud at each other.
+1 Damien, well said.
Managing the car however did play a part pre software and the over commercial f1 of today. For those who remember – Prost was always better at managing his gearbox / engine than Senna. Senna was however faster than Prost over one lap. And often over a race. Period.
Bring back manual gearboxes and only allow privateers to enter teams to race!
…and to lit your cigarette inside the paddock club you don´t need matches, use some firestones…. 😀
“what I miss and what I would like, is to see a grand prix driver actually working hard to keep ahead of a rival” well maybe I have to look twice but I can´t remember any of the current F1 cars missing their steering wheel in favour of computer-controlled steering….and I don´t know which F1 “without startegy” you mean, even during the era of the Silberpfeile pre- and post-war with Alfred Neubauer there was strategy, the season 1978 with your example Peterson was pure strategy due to Chapmans team order…and so on.
I think you mistook my comment on Ronnie, if you can find anything more exciting than Peterson going through Woodcote in a Lotus 72, in the F1 of today, please point it out, as not only me, but loads of others are not seeing it.
I probably find myself in your corner GP – the complications of flying an A380 is highly intricate and fascinating from a technical/logistical perspective. Would I watch it for 1.5 hours while it is in the air while nothing happens? Probably not.
I really think its a huge shame that more doesn’t get made of all the stories in the pitlane “GP”. Sky has a full time channel going and there is nothing on it really apart from a few hours per week, the race weekends and replays of older races.
They could fill a lot of that up with showing us say, Will Stevens weekend, or show us the weekend of the pit crew of a team, or go the other way and let the guys who stay in the factory show off what they do, or …
Really there is an endless supply of stories (if you think no one is interested, then why does National geographic or Discovery channel exist) that could create a narrative to all of the things that are abstract for us now. We just need the sport to start using that and better promote itself, show us the stories more.
See if you can “get hold of” Canal+’s “On Board F1” shows, don’t worry about not speaking French, it’s not really an issue.
Yes, I love those Jem. Thanks for reminding us to have a look at that incredible feature. Enjoyed it a lot for Monaco 🙂
The Canal+ on board coverage is excellent.
The problem with that is it’s just more for the people who don’t actually need it to be involved, they would just lap it up. Whether it wants to or not F1 needs to appeal to a wider audience and that means more exciting races for the uninitiated who don’t want to know the strategies involved. My wife will not watch F1but loves Moto gp (masses of overtaking), The Isle of Man TT races, (no overtaking) WRC (no overtaking) What these all have in common is the riders/drivers are left in charge once the racing starts and you have a great sense of what they’re doing/reacting to. This is all lost in F1 behind being told what to do by faceless teams.
I think that is turning things upside down there Rob Thompson. As I mentioned above, I think that the way to go is not to ignore or take away these aspects to create a “show”.
Instead we should give the faceless team(members) a face!
There are millions of people looking at more or less mundane lives happening on TV, internet etc. Why not show the lives of more of the people in the background. They are people, they have stories, there are stories and emotions to be shown. All of that can make for good TV, articles, stories, minigames etc.
Everyone has an opinion and they’re all valid. You could offer your suggestions which would appeal to me but my wife still wouldn’t be interested. How about a bit of both. Offer the insight into the teams for the F1 fan who wants to know all about these things but during the race go down my preferred route and cut out all the pit to car stuff and leave it to the drivers. Both sides get their wish and I think better races would result.
I am sorry but some opinions are ill-informed, ill-thought out and just plain dumb. They have no validity.
(I am not applying this to you, I am simply stating the point)
I am glad I was able to watch the race on catch up as I was able to fast forward through much of it ( due to it being boring to watch). There is nothing exciting about watching cars holding position or cruising round seconds off their true pace just to save fuel and or tyres.
What about tyre strategies?
What about the Williams-Ferrari fight?
What about Hamilton’s slow motion drifts where the whole chassis seemed to bend in one direction ala Red Bull?
What about the changed sound of the Ferrari engine and the way the drivers seemed to lean on it with relish?
The bits without wheel to wheel racing allow these thoughts, adding to the tapestry.
Less cruising around than when refuelling was allowed. We saw more genuine overtakes in Canada this year than in the years between 1994 and 2009.
Pre-1994 was even better though. Why settle for mediocre?
A fine explanation of the “nuances” that are being missed. A timely reminder of why I read your stuff.
Thanks
‘…managing fuel, tyres and brakes has always been part of the art of Grand Prix racing…’
That’s very true, Joe. Problem is, this fact has never been communicated so openly before. Now we can listen to all the radio comms and get a lot of info via social media. A few years ago we only got to know what the teams (or FOM) wanted to tell us.
When I tell my friends that fuel saving isn’t new in F1, they don’t believe me. They say ‘when we had refuelling fuel saving wasn’t necessary, so bring it back’, but in my opinion this is rubbish.
I’ve been banging that drum for years. Unfortunately, newcomers don’t often appreciate what has been going on for years and assume causation through correlation. The culprit in our bemoaning is the access we now have to the in flight activity, through telemetry and communications.
F1 should stop adding gimmicks – and the show can be improved mightily for free.
1. Scrap fuel flow limitations – the only element I dislike in the new PU’s
2. Reduce the telemetry the pits get. Limit the number of sensors, and allow them to operate at only say 10 points on the circuit.
3. Reduce comms to 3 minutes push to talk per race (except in case of accident/instruction to box)
Cost to do above? pretty much zero (beyond some software rewrites). Infact, it will be cheaper to run.
pot51e – you’re on the right lines. I would go further and just ban pit to car radio completely.
The issue is not the access of information that the viewer has but that which the teams now do. In previous era the telemetry was limited in scope and therefore they were still largely reactive in race strategy, relying on the driver for the greatest input and feedback. These days the teams have so much data they can analyze and thereby prevent unpredictable events from occurring which reduces the variability of the competition. And sport thrives on the unpredictable.
The problem is safety; in some situations the radio is critical.
So perhaps then it could be pit/car radio banned. Steward/car radio instead, where all cars hear the same information regarding safety/track conditions, and no favoritism can be claimed (if a steward warned driver A before he could warn driver B about debris at turn 1, this could be seen as a disadvantage to driver B).
Other than that, I like all of the above ideas.
Something funny happened while trying to post this; apologies if a duplicate and similar post shows up.
I like these ideas, but to go further…
Radio is still critical for safety, so I would like to see pit/driver radio reduced or removed, but keep a radio for steward/driver communication. This way safety info can be broadcast to all cars at once. It would need to be a mass broadcast because if it is only to a specific driver you could have a situation where a steward gives a driver an unfair advantage. For instance, if “Driver A” is warned of debris at Turn 1 before “Driver B” gets the memo, it could be seen as an advantage to Driver A.
I agree with your thoughts but I would just ban the telemetry being transmitted to the team. That way the team would have to plug the car in after the race to download and view the telemetry. Then we would have the driver having to manage the car for himself and when things start to go wrong there wouldn’t be an army of engineers ready with the fix. This would increase the unpredictability of the races massively
Good point Oskaalb. If there was no fuel saving back in the day then how come drivers could manually adjust the level of turbo boost? If that wasn’t about fuel then I’d love to know what it was for!
I agree with much of what is being said here, however the challenge for the sport is to grow the audience and at the moment you need to know too much about the technical and strategy aspects to be able to appreciate how a race works. F1 will continue to be less attractive to a new audience unless it is simpler and has more obvious car to car racing – especially for the US market. All that said, I’m still hooked.
Glad you raise the point about F1 being a team effort Joe.
Too often I hear TV pundits (particularly ex-drivers) bemoaning the fact that drivers are penalised for unsafe releases and engine/gearbox changes etc. They believe it’s unfair that drivers are punished for engineer’s mistakes. They forget that it’s a team game.
By their logic, it’s also unfair that teams are penalised for driver errors such as on-track infringements and crashing.
Despite my general antipathy to Lewis, he is always at pains to publicly thank his team for their efforts. Dumas said it best “Un pour tous, tous pour un”.
Red Bull, gives you… drama. By now I feel that Renault is putting this on themselves by not being firmer with RB from the start. In the Williams (and one year, Benetton) days it was always clear that the Renault was the engine to beat. Red Bull have never been more than exceptionally ungrateful for the engines they had. That is probably because Renault was the only choice they had, Ferrari and Merc having their own works teams and therefore being less than eager to supply another strong contender.
Ever since they managed to let Briatore run loose – with crashgate as a result – Renault’s F1 management and PR have been a mess. When they were winning they failed to capitalise, afraid of the aftershocks of what happened in Singapore, and currently they seem embarrasingly unable to cope with the new formula. In fact, FIA’s utter refusal to regulate the sport they are legally obliged to regulate and Renault’s utter incompetence in making headway with their PU are competing in being the most embarrassing element in F1 right now (since I don’t buy into the extraneous whingeing about speed and “lift-and-coast” and drivers not being physically challenged and Vettels teeth not being white enough or whatever the next complaint is going to be).
There is a concern, however, that when the engines are frozen for next year’s cars, Renault (and Honda) could face at least another year of uncompetitiveness. That would probably be bad for the sport. Maybe there should be a compromise on that, however much that smacks of rewarding incompetence in Renault’s case.
Brilliant analysis, beautifully written. Thanks again, Joe. You’re a treasure.
I think all the cars should have to start with the full allocation of fuel and all communication with the driver should be via pit board unless it’s a safety issue. having to show that it was safety related at the end of a race would prevent coded messages, this would put more emphasis onto the driver to manage rather than having a fleet of engineers do it for him. Reaction to others pit stops would be put off for a lap too. If you can run the race with less fuel it just means you can run faster and if a safety car comes into play then you have more fuel at the end.
Completely agree.
Yeah, I agree too… Otherwise they will continue to start races with less fuel than they needed to finish it.
I think we have to accept that some races will be dull as this one was. If you watched the England game at the weekend that was duller than any F1 race yet sometimes it is very exciting, that is just the reality of sport. Unless you put fake rules in and artificial handicaps this will happen sometimes.
I think the best way to exciting F1 races is the tracks but even this isn’t guaranteed as we saw with Canada (usually a good race)
I can’t be the only one who is rather bored with this ‘XXX is killing F1’ nonsense – last year it was ‘lack of engine noise is killing F1’, the year before ‘Pirelli tyres are killing F1’ (despite making exactly the tyres they were told to!), before that ‘aerodynamics are killing F1’, etc. etc. I seem to recall there was even a headline proclaiming ‘Ferrari are killing F1’ during their dominent Schumi/Brawn period! Anyone care to speculate on what will be ‘killing F1’ next season?
I notice that these things are also usually accompanied by some dumb suggestions by Bernie of how we can solve the ‘problem’ – I’m waiting for him to suggest we have mandatory safety cars brought out at random intervals so teams can save enough fuel to race flat out the rest of the time (a slightly less stupid idea than sprinklers – but not by much!).
You aren’t the only one 🙂
+1
I just saw a ‘Mercedes is killing F1’ headline on another site!
There’s an idea gaining traction over on James Allen’s blog that I really like; a school of thought that says that McLaren, knowing full well that this season is a complete write off, should instead thumb their nose at the engine penalty rules and instead bring new engines to every race, start wherever the penalties decree they must start, and race hell for leather on brand new engines every fortnight.
So, race starts, they start 18th, they absolutely cane it on a brand new unit, engine blows up on Lap 47, they turn up next race, start 16th, cane it again, engine blows up, rinse and repeat. So that by year’s end they’ve treated the whole season as an extended test period, given the fans some balls out racing in the meantime, and dragged their engine development up to a level far higher than they’d likely have done otherwise…
I LOVE this notion. What do you reckon?
The point is that they create as many versions of the engines a they like and test them to destruction back at base, so why do that in public? The problem seems to be that they don’t know how to get up to the speed of the others and are working away at it.
Although it appears the “correlation” between the dyno and the track is lacking otherwise there would surely not have been the surprises in pre season testing and so on….so, yeah, I think this unlikely idea has some merit, however, there is a certain moral ethic here that I’m sure Honda, with which, would not wish association
Fair point, but if it meant that Button and Alonso were just attacking tooth and nail for every single place, and the majority of the entertainment ended up deriving from the ‘what are the McLarens up to?!’ then they’d end up being firm fan favourites. In any case, I’m not really sure what ethics would apply – in the face of any criticism Honda would only have to say that each bust engine was being recycled or they were planting some trees and that would be that…
I must of been watching a different race because I was enjoying to see the cars slide out of the corners and seeing the drivers work. I hated it when it was flat out racing with refuelling there was no overtaking and 9 times out of ten it was the same winner. I think people just enjoying complaining nowadays.
I think it should be said that with social media everyone – idiots included – can have a voice, which is not necessarily a good thing
I can’t recall ever thinking a Formula One race was dull. Clearly some are less interesting or exciting than others but I never find them dull. There’s always something going on.
I even enjoy the pitlane paper boat races during wet stoppages.
Amen. It is nice to know that there are some people out there who get it.
🙂
As Bernie would say: “too democratic”!
I have always thought that there should be a test of intelligence before people are allowed access to certain things in life, the two items highest on the list are Social media and Passports.
I don’t think most fans have a problem with the sport developing and yes it will take a while for everyone to catch Mercedes, but they will. It is making things artificial and the races difficult to follow which people object to. Why on earth do we have to use two tyres, neither of which is any good, allow everyone enough fuel to race and reduce the allowance year on year and why this constant hunting down of any vague form of innovation. F1 should be about true innovation (not an extra winglet on a front wing) what’s actually wrong with flexible wings, everyone would have had them before long, allow teams to genuinely innovate and the cost per tenth of a second would plummet.
The Canadian race didn’t quite live to many previous years in terms of outright action, but it was still a tense and very watchable affair. Driver coaching seems to still be an issue though. The American commentary picked up on the fact that late on Hamilton seemed to receive direct driver coaching re a need to liftand coastt etc, but Rosberg was told his question couldn’t be answered when he asked about his remaining fuel level. Seemingly a grey area in me of clarification.
Lastly, as you say, if only Vettel could have started far higher up the grid we might well have seen him involved in the fight for victory. Ah well, that’s racing.
As far as I recall, Rosberg was only refused information when asking about his team-mates fuel level, not his own.
Rosberg was asking about Hamilton’s fuel level not his. That is why his request for info was denied.
Agreed.
Consider…..if radio comms were just not broadcast, we would all be unaware of any dramas unfolding, so would have less to b.tch about afterwards. May even think ‘what a great race that was’……
I thought Rosberg’s question was about Hamilton’s fuel which was why it couldn’t be answered.
I think that Nico’s question was about Lewis’s fuel level.
OK. Noted that Nico’s question was about Lewis’ fuel level. So how was he refused a reply when LH’s race engineer had previously clearly said “Lewis, Nico is safe on fuel – safe on fuel”. Seemingly double standards. It might have helped Nico’s cause if he had known Lewis had been instructed to lift and coast to save fuel.
I’m seeing the same thing here as on other blogs and message boards. No one will address Lewis receiving direct driver coaching. Is it against the Law to criticize this issue? Look how many comment about Nico but nothing ‘re: Lewis receiving exact distances to coast before braking. I saw that as a breach of the Sporting Regulations. I have no boring race complaints but not seeing the written Regulations followed by all competitors can’t be accepted.
Please Joe comment unless you can’t by decree of the Crown?
What are you going on about?
While at the race I suppose you wouldn’t see or hear the FOM broadcast. Late in the race Lewis was receiving exact distances to coast before braking .That is specified as not allowed. First he was told to coast for 50 meters then 100. Braking points are specifically banned as driver coaching.
Nico asked on the radio for the fuel status of Lewis and the response was they were not permitted to tell him. All the while Lewis was receiving the braking point coaching.
Get it now? I’ve yet to read from any of the supposed Formula One pundits how Merc could get away with it unpunished. All the drivel about boring races is covering up what I had perceived as a Breach of the Sporting Regulations by a race winner.
There was nothing wrong with what was done.
I think CerinoDevoti’s point is actually pretty clear, Joe. He’s referring to your silence on the subject of the clear driver coaching LH received in Canada which NR was denied. You so often seem by reluctant to criticise Lewis, whilst being quick to criticise Nico and others.
You have to remember that I see only comments, not threads. What happened in Canada was legitimate and obviously so. It did not require any comment. This it did not get one. In fact I recall that several commenters did point out the reason it was not an issue. As to the rest of the comment, that is not how I see things.
Great article. Watching the cars slide out of the last chicane, Alonso wrestling the Honda, Massa battling Ericsson last weekend and more made me realise how much is right with F1. How long have some people been watching? Turbo era: a golden era? Fuel saving was rife in the turbo era. Talk to Nico’s Dad about that. Fuel saving was a lot worse then than it is now. I remember watching cars pull over or trickle across the line on fumes. Yet few seem to speak about that. Screaming V10s in the 90s, 00s? I remember the sport had to implement grooved tyres and eventually remove traction control to make the cars exciting to watch and increase driver involvement. Overtaking back then was a bi annual occurrence. At the moment we have great engines, great drivers and quite spectacular cars (when viewed at decent tracks like Montreal). There’s a bit wrong with the show itself (such as trick tyres and a handful of god awful Tilke drones), but there is a lot right. Just wish the sport and people spent time focusing and working with what’s right with the show than throwing a bunch of frankly shyte ideas aimed at supposedly addressing what are perceived problems with the sport, supposed problems that are in fact aspects that have been and will always be a part of Grand Prix racing.
“Honda is still going through the painful process of getting up to speed, but they will get there in the end.”
yes sure…. for GP2 maybe!!!
The marriage McLaren Honda is the biggest flop since I started watching F1 around 2000, far from terrible is just below pathetic (just to be kind). Canada has been the final nail on the coffin. Their only consolation they still are ahead Manor.
Just wait…
People are writing off McLaren Honda way too early. They are making up huge ground on the other manufacturers and their rate of doing so is rather impressive. Give them another 12 months before passing verdict.
Canada usually gives us lively races, unfortunately this one never rose above average, not dull just plain average.
I would love to see a F1 run a race run this year with no radio communication at all between team and drive other than for a safety call.
Cannot help thinking that there would be some cars running out of fuel, having braking issues, blown engines, gearbox’s being crunched and so on. Just feel that there too much technology and team management these days and not enough driver input.
A lot of people are describing the race as tense, what element of it exactly? I can’t say I picked up on any tension at all. At the very least can we agree there was not any tension at the front, Lewis had this won on lap 1 and cruised to the flag?
F1 is a multi-dimensional sport. You can watch it in one dimensions, to see spectacular racing, crashes or whatever it is that turns you on. You can watch it in two dimensions and understand the strategies and the complex elements involved in winning on-track. You can watch it in three dimensions and see the many different levels of activity that come together to create the sport. And you can also see it in four dimensions because you can learn and understand the history and how the sport ended up as it is and the possible routes that exist for the future. To simply say that “this is dull” simply suggests that you have not scratched the surface at all and are simply interested in one-dimensional activity. That is fine, but there is a lot more to this game than you think.
The bit that grated for me in Montreal was that the engineers were clearly coaching the drivers. However driver coaching is ridiculous, sure tell them if the engine is about to go bang or the car is going to be unsafe to drive – particularly with the engine/gearbox penalties but let the drivers drive and manage their own races. Perhaps the cars could have a fuel gauge and leave the drivers to get on with it. They are after all supposed to be professionals. If a car runs out of fuel, tough it has happened before and it will happen again.
The Ferraris sounded completely different to me. That odd sounding vibration/rumble at low revs is gone. Shame, I thought it was quite cool!
Their improvement does beg the question of what Mercedes will bring when they finally put new engines in! Obviously the scope for improvement is less but the others must be dreading it surely..
“As to the lack of fight at the front between Hamilton and Rosberg it is clear that they were both managing the different elements and the margins to do more than that were limited.”
I would say at this point that the reason there is a lack of fight between Hamilton and Rosberg is because Hamilton has clearly gained the upper hand on him. The same was true in Montreal. Hamilton had no problem pulling out 3-4 second gaps on Rosberg at the end of both tire runs. He clearly had pace in his pocket over the run and more pace at the end of the long-runs, even while having to manage his fuel.
Again, if Rosberg ever had the pace to fight him, he would be able to at least crack the DRS zone- which he has never been able to do this season. He was able to do this in Bahrain and Spain last year- the whole two races last year when Rosberg had a clearly defined pace advantage. The fact that he hasn’t been able to do this speaks volumes. Sure, he can claim his teammate has the same car and therefore it’s difficult. But if you are going to use that logic, Rosberg, then why is it that your teammate has been able to blow past you a number of times in the same car, while you haven’t been able to do it once?
The bottom line is that Rosberg is getting rocked in every way, shape, and form this year. He’s down 6-1 in qualifying, and he would be down 6-1 in races if not for the most epic strategy screw up in the history of European sports. That is why there is a lack of fight between Hamilton and Rosberg. And Rosberg is the only one who can change this, not the Mercedes engineers.
The way I heard it, Rosberg was not asking about his own fuel levels, but about Hamiltons, and that is prohibited along with other info about your own teammates current situation.
I fully agree with the level of driver coaching though. F1 is a team sport yes, but sometimes it is like there is a team actually driving the car during the race and the bloke in the cockpit is just following orders.
I don’t mind the level of telemetry from car to pit, but I would ban the “human telemetry” from pit to car just like the pit to car electronic telemetry has been.
Allow pit-calls & safety calls, but that is it. Add a few more gauges if there is car info the pilot needs to know and currently relies on the pit to tell him.
A nicely written piece that, to those of us who have been lucky enough to have watched this sport over a few decades, is full of common sense and well made points. My memory might be letting me down however, I seem to remember even the likes of Senna & Prost and the other legends during F1’s golden era of the mid-to late 80s had to ‘manage’ fuel consumption and could not race flat out for the whole 200 miles. In fact, I believe that the famous incident at Monza 1988 when Senna tripped over Jean-Loius Schlesser was due, in part, to Ayrton having had to ‘manage’ his fuel consumption very late on in the race with Prost having pushed him hard early on, forcing him to burn more fuel than he wanted. It just adds to the tension; keeps you guessing ’till the end. Was the conclusion to that famous Monza race boring? I doubt that you’ll find a member of the Tifosi who’d agree with that! Even as a Senna fan I’d have to agree it made for a fairy tale finish.
Precisely. ’88 was – for all its dominance and “boredom” – a classic season. But for the Schlesser factor a clean sweep? Yet each race had its own point of interest, as does each race now. Let’s not focus always on the macro, the delight of F1 is often in the week-by-week micro; the back-story. That’s what makes the inaccessible – the extreme talent of the pilots – accessible to us lesser folk. “But for Schlesser” is the stuff of the lunchroom, it’s something we all get. 35 years on each dull race has its own special place – even if that’s only because the anticipation was even less fulfilled than the year before!
I appreciate an engineering competition plenty; I admit to having watched the DARPA challenge last weekend on live stream. But I want some excitement too, and the DARPA show had novelty to draw me in which F1 doesn’t much possess.(to say nothing about current physical requirements allowing older drivers to hang on year after year) Also, it’s hard to see what’s so great about cars that cannot closely follow each other lest their tires, brakes and power units fry.
It wasn’t just D. Coulthard writing about the dissatisfaction of drivers. I recently heard one Derek Bell say much the same on a panel via Radio Lemans. That the drivers are RACERS, so let them race.
I half agree with your analogy but as the drivers say , they are easy to drive that all the new drivers are competing first year in , the drivers are not challenged & not much faster than what they were used to , being the fittest is no longer an advantage.
The difference in lap times from GP2 to F1 for the $ spent is ridiculous, they call that technology .
Crazy that there is no catch up clause for the engine, especially for Honda , we have to watch them suffer instead of seeing the development happen race by race .
The manufacturer’s are developing in the background and spending the money but their hands are tied on how fast they can release the improvement & are locked in to a substandard design .
If you don’t like Formula 1, the onus isn’t necessarily on Formula 1 to change to suit you. Perhaps you just don’t like Formula 1, it’s not for everyone, it requires brain to be engaged as well as eyes.
Try speedway, simple, loud, tons of overtaking, no attention span required.
You can’t just belittle people who don’t like F1. This is about peoples ideas to make it better and even the teams agree something must be done. It’s about encouraging a wider audience and stopping the manufactures from using it to their own ends and then walking away leaving it in a poor state.
Totally agree with you Rob. But unfortunately some people just see the world in black and white.
+1 Rob – its disappointing that some take a highbrow stance to denigrate those with an alternative perspective. It is this level of self-absorbed culture that is prevalent in Formula 1 that is turning the hardcore follower away.
Agreed Bob Ballard.
+ 1 Bob!
Read the Mark Hughes article about fuel, brake and and tyre management. Hits the nail on the head. Also loose all those bloody buttons on the steering wheels and cut all communication between the pits and driver during the race. it’s not Le Mans, it’s Formula !. So lets see the drivers drive flat out.That’s what the drivers want, and most of the fans want the same.
Joe, a delight to meet you at the audience. With respect to the race it was intriguing to the last 5 laps. Knowing that Montreal is hard on brakes and fuel one never knows what can occur at the front. And sometimes something happens as when I was there in 91 and watched Piquet win.
My son – delighted in watching Vettel pull himself from 18th place all the way to 5th. We discussed that if he started up front it would be a different race.
“Dimension” is a good concept. My son was intrigued with the perspective of looking at F1 as “War”…..
Additionally. I have made the purchase of the Magazine.
Kind Regards,
If you want to see over taking and close racing, then watch motoGP. I went to the Canadian GP for 1st time and loved every minute of it. My wife, who could care less, but followed me anyway, asked how do we get to the circuit. I looked around, saw all the Ferrari fans and yes, follow them. Next year off the Europe!