16/04/2013
NEWS STORY
 |
Sunday's Chinese Grand Prix has clearly polarised race fans, with some claiming it was a great, exciting race and others insisting that it was manipulated to within an inch of its life.
Indeed, in the first ever Pitpass post-race Podcast, the three contributors - yours truly, Glen Crompton and Mat Coch - have differing views of the race.
In the days when refuelling meant a series of short sprints people complained; now, as the sport become ever more strategic, many fans are still unhappy.
Launching its 2013 range of PZero tyres, Pirelli admitted that to produce tyres that went an entire race distance would be easy. Howeber, the powers that be had ordered them to produce tyres that would deliberately degrade and thereby spice up the action. They obliged.
From the opening race certain teams have complained about the durability of the softer compounds, which as far as the man in the street is concerned is grossly unfair on the Italian tyre manufacturer. It was given a remit and it has delivered.
Ignoring the situation in Malaysia, which saw the Red Bull and Mercedes drivers ordered to hold station, in China things got worse still. Following the first half-hour of non-action on Friday morning, for a while on Saturday afternoon it looked as if their might be no action in the final phase of qualifying, traditionally one of the most exciting parts of the weekend.
At one stage in the race Felipe Massa asked what was happening, the Brazilian clearly as baffled by the various strategies as the rest of us. Jenson Button asked if he was allowed to fight, whilst Sebastian Vettel was told not to waste time holding off Fernando Alonso.
Previously, Mark Webber, had compared the current situation to WWF (wrestling), whilst Kimi Raikkonen, one of the sport's true ten-tenths racers, when asked how he feels about this particular form of F1 replied: "It makes no difference, because this is what we have and you'd better like it or do something else."
Despite the dire warnings, in the final laps of the race, Vettel showed us what the soft tyres were really capable of, the three fastest laps of the entire race being set in the final laps by drivers on the option rubber.
In essence, Formula One 2013 is about managing one's equipment as opposed to racing, and a lot of people feel they are being short-changed.
We'll ignore, for now, the fact that the DRS zones made overtaking too easy, we'll even ignore the ongoing telemetry problems that threatened to turn the race result on its head, had (eight!) drivers been punished for using DRS in a yellow flag zone, but we cannot ignore the fact that the sport is in danger of losing fans as it becomes too strategic and too reliant on conserving the car as opposed to racing. But what do you think?
Chris Balfe
Editor
To send your thoughts, click here
Note: Please include your full name - without a full valid name we will not publish your entry.
Robert Hill
Motor sport is supposed to be about competition. We have competing teams, drivers, chassis, engines, gearboxes, brakes, etc, etc, but not competing tyres!
The Pirelli monopoly is the antithesis of competition.
Let Michelin into F1 alongside Pirelli (Michelin is only interested in F1 if there is competition!), and there will be no more artificial circuses like we have now.
Roberto Alvarez
in short... this tire charade has gone way out of line.
as much as the excessive PR bs and the continuous homage to corporate images… blah, blah, blah… yes, i know, they pay the bills...
but true racing is gone since a long time ago...
maybe the opportunity for a NEW class of racing is ripe. away from all this &%$#^ and they can stuff their money where they best can.....
without excessive penalties, bernie, tv ratings, and corporate images..... YES, PLEASE !
true racing.... (say in the 50's & 60's or even earlier in the times of Tazio Nuvolari, etc) money was not the god it is today, and while still important, the imagination, skill, and daring of engineers, team managers and drivers gave us all real thrills and entertainment, without the sickening bs of .... the world according bernie.... (aka how much revenue & ratings the tv world will give us)
michael schumacher as "mercedes ambassador for safety"..... ? please.... oh my dog.... i suppose schumacher does not mind getting paid for putting up an act..... (ask jacques villeneuve what he thinks of THAT -lol)
Brian Jordan
I recently sounded off on my Facebook page on this subject...
I had a whinge after the Malaysian GP about the "slow bicycle race" mentality that has come to dominate F1. It is of course fascinating to see how teams manage the equipment they are obliged to use and the juggling of tyres, fuel and rule book no doubt have a place at this level of motorsport.
However it increasingly makes for disappointing viewing for fans wordwide who get up at all hours to watch, and perhaps worse it cheats the many who pay large sums to go to the races in the expectation of seeing racing cars being driven at racing speeds. I had hoped the press reaction to "Vettelgate" would give the powers that be a reminder of this but after watching the qualifying where "slow bicycle qualifying" was the order of the day it seems not.
F1 needs to wake up to the fact that it is in the business of entertainment as well as being an arena for technical excellence and advanced navel gazing. If the tyres that were introduced to enhance the spectacle fail to produce an edge of the seat Q3 they should go the way of teams and drivers who have failed to perform. Why is F1 becoming an endurance racing series while increasingly endurance racing series' are producing 6, 12 and even 24 hour sprints?
Stu Irvine
I think things do have to change because this format will lose fans. I would like to see tyres that may or may not last a full race depending on how hard you push them. DRS removed, this is making racing false, I think in its place a push to pass button, rather like the one that was in A1 GP, but limited to a number of times that it could be used in a race but it could be reset if you make a pit stop. Fuel stops re-introduced but allow the teams to design their cars with fuel tanks to the size they want.
Mike Currie - Canada
I have followed F1 since I was a young man in the 1950's. I think today's racing is by far less interesting. I have to believe that a large part of this is because of the advent of too much technology. I'd prefer less aerodynamics, less engine management, less electronic data collecting and manipulation and more driving skill.
That's not to say that F1 isn't the pinnacle of motorsport, it's just becoming too "managed".
Why not eliminate the two tire choices. You'd have one type of tire to make the best of within the limits of the quantity provided.
Nick Bee - Johannesburg, ZA
I'm two minds and agree with Robert Hill - let the other manufacturers enter the fray and let the winners have proper bragging (marketing) rights. On the other, the teams need to think a little harder and use their existing resources and telemetry gleaned from the race last year at that venue.
F1 teams are generally good at finding solutions and it won't take them too long to work out which tyre will suit a particular driver and his driving style to each circuit, even if the tyres composition does vary from last year's race.
But going back to point #1, yes, bring back the Michelins GoodYears and Firestones. The quibbling among teams and drivers, bitching about tyres, will soon stop.
Ian Johnston
We are in danger of Mr 'E' having another egg in his basket by starting a new formula. Out will go F1, and welcome to Formula Tyres.
All the teams will relegated to become the 'Tools' that make the new formula possible. No more McLaren, Red Bull, Lotus etc. The Teams will end up being Pirelli, Goodyear, and Michelin. And Technology will be geared toward Asphalt, Tar McAddam and Concrete.
Not an exciting proposition at all!
Peter Wells
Whilst I still love F1 I have to say it's lost its purity and to some degree its soul. From qualifying through to the race it's become a lottery. I recall fondly the practise format of the late 80's when u knew when the flying lap was coming in. I recall the magic of Mansell in his Williams exiting Leeukop at Kyalami and brushing the wall leaving magnesium sparks which set the veld on fire. Afterwards he was heard to say he had a little confidence lift off.
I may be wrong but I am sure that a number of grandstands were removed at this year's Chinese GP so TV audiences couldn't see the vacant seats. What is F1 doing in smoggy China and India anyway let alone Bahrain and all the other tracks without heritage and history? Is GP racing really about fuel saving DRS and KERS?
I have not watched a live GP since the South African Grand Prix fell off the calendar - I wonder that if I had the pleasure again in today's world whether I would actually know what was going on.
Dan Masters
Pirelli are not to blame for the current tyre "issues" within Formula 1, Pirelli have delivered exactly what has been asked for, rightly or wrongly.
If you want to do away with all the apparent lack of purity within the current F1 spectacle, (in some sections of the media's opinion, not necessarily my own) all that is required, is a limit on down force generation. This would solve most of the debate regarding DRS and overtaking etc.
If you can get right up under the gearbox of the car in front, then you can race your opponent and race them hard! This would mean that deliberately short life span tyres are just not required to mix things up a bit.
In my opinion, it's all about the spectacle for the viewer and subsequently the interest generated for the sponsors and therefore the income that the teams would receive for real innovation, research/development and pushing the boundaries during the design and manufacture processes, which makes F1 the pinnacle that it is/should be.
What I think people want is to see is, every other weekend the perceived best racing drivers (we won't go down the whole pay per seat route here) jump into the best racing cars and then the watch on the edge of our seats as they all charge as hard as they dare, overtaking, pressurising and fighting the other drivers and more importantly generating and overcoming risks etc (which is where the variables between cars and probably more importantly the drivers could really be exploited).
Limit the down force, open up the other limiting regulations on chassis, engine, gearbox etc and let the design teams go wild in an attempt to maintain comparable lap times to allow F1 to preserve its premier motorsport reputation.
As an aside, in my view more people are likely to become disinterested in F1 (and subsequently all the problems that will undoubtedly arise with regards to sponsors and venues etc) due to having to fill BSkyB's purse as opposed to what may be considered "staged" racing?
Congratulations must go to Fernando for yet another stellar performance as usual!
Dominic Moss
In the past we have had regulations that restricted the amount of fuel - this resulted in drivers having to manage their consumption and in some cases losing positions late in the race to more disciplined drivers. When there has been competition between Tyre suppliers it has sometimes massively favoured one make over another with the result being that teams on the wrong tyre were disadvantaged. We have also had numerous situations where one team had a significant performance advantage and simply walked away with every race. You could say that the extraordinary reliability of current F1 cars diminishes the show, it used to be a reasonably common occurrence for cars to retire due to mechanical problems. I vividly recall the thrill of John Watson at Silverstone in 1981 where several cars ahead of him succumbed to mechanical failures, that unpredictable element is gone but I don't hear anyone complaining about reliability diminishing the racing.
At present we are confronted with the confections of DRS and Pirelli tyres, as Kimi eloquently states it is what it is, deal with it. I would rather the unpredictable nature of F1 2013, 3 races 3 different winners - all of them champions, to some of the processions we were confronted with when Ferrari and Schumacher were at their peak.
Ven Adamov
I have been watching F1 for over 20 years and, in my opinion, the last two championships have been the most exciting since the Mika Hakkinen vs. Schumacher battles. Credit for that goes mainly to Pirelli. It is true that passing nowadays is not what it used to be in the Senna/Prost years. It has been made too easy with DRS and often not so contested when conserving tires. But do I want to go back to the processional races of the last 10 years? Surely the answer is no.
True, there is always the argument that races can be spiced up in a different way by fostering true passing like in the days of old. But how much of that is nostalgia that makes us forget the true picture from those days? In any case, coming up with a golden balance of rules that will allow true competition without too much strategic emphasis is a multiple million dollar question that has no easy answer. It is a quest which takes a lot of efforts, money and time through trials, which we have seen too well in the last decade. An so far it resulted in what we have. Which I think is not bad at all. If none of us can guess who will win next race, or even this race a few laps from its end, what else can we wish for? My personal opinion is that we cannot achieve "true" competitive racing on track unless we make cars all the same, like in Indycar. But then we lose all the branding of F1, and this is what makes the difference in F1, isn't it?
As Kimi put it: it is what it is, you better like it or find something else to do. If a true racer like Kimi chooses to like, why wouldn't I too?
Keep up the good work and useful insights coming!
Rolf Steffen
Same same, but different.
70's cars would fall apart during the race leaving a few to complete the distance, not exactly exciting.
80's we had 60 minute qualifying, that is, 56 minutes of waiting and then Senna would blitz everyone. Not exactly exciting.
90's we had gadgets galore introduced, not knowing whether it was the engineers in the pitlane or the driver controlling things. Not exactly exciting.
00's we had a red car with unlimited access to testing winning everything. And cars falling apart left, right and center. Not exactly exciting.
10's we have DRS, which makes overtaking too easy. Not exactly exciting.
Come on! We love this sport.
Every decade has had something which wasn't necessarily exciting, but everything else, the inter team rivalry, the race in R&D for new downforce solutions, the rookies, the media being closer to the action, bringing the viewer closer to the action, the monosyllabic superstars, the twitter feeds from the garage, the overtaking on the outside down into Eau Rouge, the chasing down of leaders with no laps left, the interviews with happy drivers, the interviews with disgruntled drivers and so on and so on.
Kimi is right; this is what we have, if you don't like it, you better go do something else.
Robert Passman - Maryland, USA
While it is nice that Pirelli uses the excuse they were "asked" to produce a tire that degrades, I doubt what we have seen is exactly what anyone wanted. A tire that works for three laps???? Give us a break. The tires also have continually produced a track with a decreasing width from early on in the race. The degradation results in large chunks of klag defining an ever narrowing track with only one possible racing line. This is analogous to the drying track after a rain when the driver dares not deviate from the drying line.
The tire producing geniuses should be required, first, to produce a tire that doesn't degrade the track, then let them play with the wear factor. If they can't do it, well, should we be surprised?
Strategy is one thing. Luck is another but with these ridiculous tires strategy and luck are becoming synonyms. You had more strategy in the past when qualifying was exciting and there were qualifying tires. The strategy will evolve on the grid when you see what each team has chosen to start the race on.
Hardly any need to mention the pleasure of looking at an empty track while Hobbs, Matchette et al blather on.
Neal Weingart - USA
How is managing tire wear not racing? Racing has always had at it's core the necessity to manage every aspect of one's vehicle so as to finish the race and by doing so more quickly or with more luck than one's competitors, winning.
Graham Godfrey
After many years I have stopped watching F1, it is no longer about racing, fastest car, fastest driver, it's (as you say) just become a manipulated show.
Lets have a tyre which can last a race - doesn't mean everyone will make it last a race, they might want to change. Get rid of this daft two tyre formula - one useless one worse than useless - and let everyone race properly. The other excessivley dominant factor is aero - because it is about the only thing that can be changed teams are spending huge amounts on tiny aero changes which are meaningless to most spectators.
Reintroduce innovation, allow changes to engines, suspension etc. rather than crushing the first sign of new thinking, that is what will attract people to the sport. An extra slot in a front wing is not innovation, and frankly not very interesting.
Dave Kane - Scottsdale, USA
All I know is that when F1 was at its best there was a tire war. We have different engines, different chassis...why not different tires. F1 is suppose to be about competition at the highest level.
Bryan Emery
The DRS may be regarded by most people as artificial and detrimental to 'pure' Racing. It's true that it aids overtaking, but given the current level of Aerodynamics and the effect it has on cars in pursuit, DRS is a necessary tool to bring back the same level of overtaking that we used to see when aerodynamics were not as advanced.
As regards the current Tyre situation, I think that F1 is wandering blindly into an dead-end alley. The tyres are slowly denying us the pleasure of seeing the real talent of the top Drivers.
In China, we heard Jenson Button ask if he could 'fight' with Lewis and we all wanted to hear his Engineer say "Bloody right - fill your boots mate".
But alas, Jenson, together with most of his fellow drivers were demoted to 'on-board resource management technicians'
Either bring back Michelin, or tell Pirelli to stop learning how to make F1 tyres at our expense.
Paul Anderson
I also have followed F1 for more than 20 years and I am left feeling a little dumbfounded when I hear people moaning about the lack of competition these days. Last season we had 7 different winners of the first 7 races. This year (so far) we've had 3 different winners from the first 3 races.
God forbid we return to last decade when it wasn't so much who ws going to win, but rather who was going to come second or third.
I do not want 1 or 2 teams dominating. Last race we had placings 1-4 within 13 seconds of each other, 2-4 within 3 seconds. How much better can it get than that?
The tire debate is a bit of a joke in my opinion. It's the same for all teams and whether some people like it, or not, strategy has always been part of racing.
DRS, don't get rid of it but rather have where the drivers can only use it so many times per race, or for so long per race. A push to pass type of scenario.
Max Conde
Great podcasts guys I'm really enjoying them.
There's always something for people to complain isn't there? People will never be happy about whatever the state of F1 is. Whether it's short qualifying stints between fuel stops or no pitting whatsoever over the course of the whole race, people will complain.
I can say I am not too bothered about the 2013 tire specs.. Granted pilots have to manage their tires, but it's not too bad. Actually it was always like that when the tires could last a whole race if pampered. (Crompo: I don't agree with your comment about going to work in your car and not having tires to come back with. We could say the same about most things F1 compared to normal cars. Like needing a team of 12 people just to start your car in the morning).
What I really have an issue with is Kers and DRS. Granted they have given us a great last couple of years of racing, but I still see them as video game gismos and not something Formula 1 should retort to in order to make racing fun. I believe the biggest issue lies with the wings. They should be banned. I know it's hard because of the commercial aspect, but I bet it wouldn't be too traumatic.
Bill Richards
I really enjoyed some aspects of the race, the tactical play can be fascinating if you are that way minded, for many though it makes no sense to seemingly strangle the best racing drivers in the world right now. I think the need to look after engines takes too high a priority as the penalties can be harsh, but the fuel limit is a good idea, though the teams using less to save weight are killing themselves to live. Formula 1 having the est drivers and best machines is brilliant but engine developments should be allowed to improve speed and efficiency.
Pirelli have provided what was asked of them in terms of grip and durability so the teams must learn how to best use the tyres and race with them to the limits, they are the biggest provider of interest during a race.
Qualifying could be better served if the FIA ruled that teams must be on track for 50% of each session assuming they get through the round, forcing the better teams to use more tyres will improve the chances of lower teams racing the top teams as they use the tyres up within the current allowance, I think this would make the whole sport a bit more interesting and level the playing field a bit, at the moment we seem to have 3 separate races going on on the same circuit with little chance of lower teams beating the teams who have the money for the best of the best so Caterham can never even consider racing a McLlaren or Ferrari.
Daniel Hauser
I'm of two minds about the current tyre situation.
On the one hand, the situation is the same for every driver. Team x may have an advantage on one weekend, but a week later, it they may not be the top contender anymore. Having said that, I believe, that the situation between the teams balances out over the whole season.
In this 2013 season I expect Ferrari, Red Bull, Lotus, Mercedes and McLaren to be contenders, at least for the drivers' championship.
Even if one or more of these teams won't stay strong throughout the whole season, that is more teams with title chances than we have seen in the previous years (where it was mostly a triple-header).
On the other hand, the tyre limitation has its own influences on Formula One. I think it's about time to start a discussion, when a team like Red Bull is switching to a non-aggression pacts between their drivers in only the second race - all because they're worried about their tyres giving out during the fight.
On a final note, some more thoughts: what characteristics do you want to see in a world champion? Personally, I don't care all that much, if a driver has golden hands and the title of tyre whisperer. Yes, this is certainly an achievement woth noting and praising for, but the best champions, to my mind at least, have always been those with character, those that have the fighting spirit. We may have a few of those in the current field of Formula One drivers, but they won't have a chance to shine in the current situation.
For me it comes down to this: limiting the performance or lifetime of tyres can be okay. But I draw the line, when a driver, who is able to show the maximum of his package (car, tyres, driver), will be penalized by the current tyres. You only needed to look at the lap times of Lewis Hamilton during the Chinese Grand Prix. The beginning laps of each stint, he was able to not only match the others' pace, but beat the opposition, only to fall away in the later laps.
Us fans won't always see it this clearly, but China has been a wake-up call to me. I wish, that showing the maximum performance wouldn't immediately compromise a driver and if Pirelli (and the FIA) wishes to continue in that vein, I will have to ask myself, if the Sky subscription will be worth it in the future.
Vinodh Moodley
Every time the rules in F1 change, there are people moaning about something or other. Too little overtaking, too much overtaking, too predictable, too unpredictable, etc. Those people that really believe that that F1 is too much about management and too little about racing, should just switch over to Indycar or NASCAR.
We should enjoy this period of intense competition because there's a very likely possibility that 2014 will be a year of one team dominating and us fans wishing we could go back in time.
Ray Drinkwater
The fact that we are having this conversation-about tire management-says all that really needs to be said about the current state of F1. Once it was a sport of cars and drivers. Now it is a test of rubber? What was once the pinnacle of motorsport is now a farce and only getting more embarrassing by the moment. If the greatest engineers, designers, and aerodynamicists cannot produce cars that result in real completion, then perhaps is it time for F1 to acknowledge what it really is-staged theatre, with actors and props and an inferior script.
Rod Aguirre
1) I'd like to see fuel and tyres that last the race and freedom for the teams to do whatever they want.
2) I would allow a couple of different compounds, but nothing like the Pirelli softs or even medium. This would be the controlling factor.
3) I would also limit the aerodynamics very drastically.
The strategy would revert to the ability to read the race and pace accordingly. These changes would obviously produce slower cars but it would be less confusing and gimmicky. The ability to pass would come back to F1 (lower aerodynamic disturbance for the following cars).
But the most important thing is that the better drivers would be rewarded.
Rob Ducker - New Zealand
The way ahead for Formula 1.
For many years the FIA has sought to control the speeds, safety and costs of F1. In particular, F1 and its safety of has been perceived by the FIA as something that they can control and hence improve by reducing speeds -most often by reducing the impacts of new technologies. Often this has been for sound reasons: not least the control of costs to improve the accessibility of racing to the public.
In contrast however, F1 sees itself as being the ultimate expression of auto engineering and technology: the fastest possible race cars irrespective of price. Fans love F1 for this very reason: a no compromise approach to racing at the very highest possible level, albeit within a strict framework of rules. Because the FIA controls the rules this inevitably leads to conflict.
In recent years the contrast between the FIA and the ideals of F1 teams has led to a gradual dilution of the Teams ethos by the controlling body. For example:
1980's Ground effect - to fast, too much grip, too damaging to drivers Eg: dual chassis cars banned
Active suspension - too much technology: only the best funded teams could compete
Electronic and mechanical anti-lock brakes and other driver aides banned (it is accepted that 1990-1992 was the summit of F1 engineering)
Successive front and rear wing restrictions to reduce aero downforce
3.5L V12/V10s banned - too much power, speed, cost
3.0LV10's banned - too much power/ power "arms race"
Grooved tires introduced in an effort to reduce lap times
2.4 V8s - Power and development artificially restricted/frozen to limit the arms race
Refuelling banned as too dangerous (but also because of unbridled flat-out racing this enabled because of durable tires)- larger fuel tanks slow cars and increase pressure on tires
EBD banned and Pirelli tires introduced with a mandate to introduce higher degradation (speed based) tires - drivers are limited to racing within the limits of tire degradation
Latest iteration of Pirellis raise degradation levels even higher: racing becomes "tire management".
While there have been mostly negative efforts to control F1 there have been some positives: Not the least has been KERS (now leading to ERS) and active DRD on straights within the 1 second rule.
The introduction of the 1.6 litre Turbo is also a positive step and fits (somewhat loosely) within the F1 ethos, in that fuel efficiency in particular is now paramount.
The Future F1.
In keeping with its ethos F1 must adapt but it must also be simplified.
1. There is no logical reason to have F1 Rear wings at their current size. Their height should be controlled but their width should be increased commensurably with the overall car width
2. The restrictions on from wing flexibility should be rescinded because it serves no useful purpose other than destroying aero balance.
3. In future engines should be limited to 100 Kg of fuel per 300Km of racing. Period. Turbo or atmospheric, any capacity and any energy recovery system of any capacity may be included.
4. No ban on EBD (but extensive use of ERS and front wing changes mean it has less relevance).
5. Tires are open: ice within chassis width restrictions.
6. Weight limits revised to minimum of 550-500KG
Leo Breevoort - The Netherlands
I don't really understand the public debate. What would happen if Pirelli made the F1 tyres long lasting and very consistent (i.e. worn tyres are only marginally slower than fresh ones)? Long lasting tyres mean less optional strategies available and consistent tyres mean less possible gains in alternative strategies. In other words, everybody would do exactly the same 1 or 0 stop strategy.
Would that lead to better racing? I seriously doubt it. In China Hamilton and Raikkonen were running similar strategies. Although locked in a 'ferocious' battle for second place, they were hardly ever very close on track. Raikkonen claimed the spot not by making a pass (despite DRS), but by taking a quicker pit stop. I think the only reason the Chinese GP was worth watching, was that Vettel, Button and Hulkenberg tried something different. If they had done the same as everybody, they would have qualified in the 'right' position and the race would have been a 56 lap parade.
So I think, for the viewers sake, there should be several strategic options to win a race. The easiest way to do that is through the tyres and I think Pirelli is doing a fine job. If I could change anything though, I'd give every driver 2 sets of each compound dry tyre at the start of the weekend and let them use those anyway they want throughout all the sessions and the race.
Peter Ward
I'm with those who despair at the way F1 is manipulated in order to create "excitement". I've been a fan, off and on, since the 1960's, and today's iteration of F1 is probably even duller than the Ferrari\Brawn\Schumacher years, and that's saying something!
Take some of the best drivers and RACERS in the world, develop cars at the cost of hundreds of millions of pounds, sounds like a great recipe? However you daren't let them go 'too fast' because Bernie\FIA has ordered Pirelli to develop tyres which only work properly on shopping trips to Tescos, and which wear out if you race on them....
I'm sure all those figurative Martians watching this on Sky are laughing their heads off in amazement. Just like the old "Smash" commercials of fond memory.
I'm not going to reiterate all the obvious stuff about how "aero" is too influential. The crux is that the cars are the determining factor in the Championship, and have been for many years. The stultification of the rules, which effectively prohibit any innovation, merely emphasises the importance of the vehicle "package" at the expense of any serious competition between drivers.
Over the course of a season, a few mm of carefully shaped CF is worth more than a Hamilton, Alonso or Raikonnen behind the wheel.
However, my critique is based on F1 as a Sport. Sadly it has simply become a Business which generates (for some) and consumes (for most) almost unimaginable sums of money. It seems that the casual consumers of F1 find the heady mix of gossip, celebrity and unpredictability a satisfactory cocktail. They are Bernie's target demographic, so I'm not expecting any improvement any time soon...
Daniel Linger
I certainly feel that F1 has become a managed show, and far from a true sporting race.
I cannot blame Pirelli in any way. Comments about Goodyear et al entering the fray would serve no purpose as it currently stands, because they would be under the same remit that Pirelli have been given.
I echo the comments of others that there is generally too much meddling in the rules to artificially spice up the action. Of course, all that has led to precisely that - artificial action.
The general problem can be summed up by one statement: "cause and symptom". The FIA and indeed Mr Ecclestone have been all too keen to create convoluted restrictions and systems to change things instead of keeping things simple.
The laughable concern about the money in the sport is frankly a wasted exercise. When you're dealing with millions of pounds anyway, cost savings of several millions remains somewhat moot. If you're talking millions, you can clearly afford it, so what of it?
Let the money be spent and production cars will get the benefit as we've seen time and time again.
Getting back to the convoluted nonsense, the KISS principle would be the best.
You have problems with overtaking, why bother with a daft DRS system (symptom) when you can simply kill the amount of downforce (cause), as others have suggested? The problem with piddling around with symptoms is that you stop one, and another springs up. Nip the cause in the bud, and it has far wider-reaching effect and is far more definitive.
So, in summary, my belief is:
Limited downforce, to be used as you wish over the body of the vehicle.
Tyres - whatever you wish, as much as you wish.
Possible boost such as push-to-pass with limited use? Uncertain about this.
Paul Lucas
It's true that the last few seasons have been more exciting than some of those in prior years but that excitement has been manufactured by the introduction of gimmicks like DRS and self-destructing tires. It's like spicing up football by randomly releasing packs of wild dogs onto the field. It would make it more exciting and would probably increase viewing figures but it's hardly what the sport is supposed to be about.
So gimmicks are in but the concept of the level playing field has to be maintained and so only sanctioned gimmicks are allowed and there's little room for innovation by individual teams. Try something a bit different and the other teams will protest, prove that your idea is allowed by the rules and just wait, they will change the rules and outlaw it the following year. Everyone remembers the six-wheeled Tyrrell and the Lotus with the twin chassis and later active suspension but they wouldn't be allowed to try it these days.
Teams are now more concerned with tire management than racing and drivers are asking whether or not they should try to race another driver or just wait them out. It's OK to have different tire compounds but make them realistic and then let the teams decide which ones they will use. One team may select the hardest compound and drive it all the way without ever stopping, another may choose the softest, drive harder and make three or four stops and most of the rest will probably do something in between as they see how the tires degrade and how the other teams' strategies are working out.
To increase passing, decrease the allowed aero downforce and increase the mechanical grip. Less turbulence, big fat tires and cars slipstreaming and passing just like they used to.
I don't know if there has truly ever been a "golden age" of Formula 1 as everyone remembers a different era more fondly depending on their age but I swear that it was more exciting 30-40 years ago when wings were smaller, tires were bigger and teams were allowed to decide their own strategies. I want to see some great drivers get in the best cars possible and then drive their balls off all the way to the checkered flag. Surely that's not too much to ask?
Alan Kerry - Ireland
I have been an avid formula 1 fan since 2001 and in that time I have attended 14 races and have only missed 3 televised races. I can not believe that people are prepared to complain about the current format. The last two seasons have been excellent.
I remember quite clearly in the period previous to this if a casual viewer happened to arrive to watch a race you would be almost embarrassed to try and explain why you would give up two hours of your Sunday to something that nine times out of ten the end result was clearly evident on the Saturday after qualifying.
People are now impressed by the racing and excitement that these races and seasons now produce. This is the show we ALL wanted when we didn't have it !!! I think Pirelli should be applauded for what they have done. Long may it last.
Ian Holder - Surrey, UK
Is a good race one in which there are many overtaking manoeuvres each lap, or one in which the best car and driver combination wins emphatically? Having watched formula one for over forty years I was initially seduced by the impact of short-life tyres, DRS ad KERS, but I long for the days when the best car and driver combination won because of technical merit and driver skill, not because of tyre management or better strategy. Spectators would laugh if a marathon runner took it easy for the first half of the race because his/her running shoes might not last the full distance, or a footballer choose to not try to score a goal because his/her football boots might not last the entire match if they were used too much!
There was a time when formula one used leading edge automotive technology and engineering; we now have some of the best technology in all aspects of the cars, except the tyres which are designed to be short-lived! I want to see non-stop races, no fuel stops, no tyre stops (except for punctures and why not limit the number of people who can work on a car during a tyre change to four, that would stop strategic tyre stops), no DRS, no KERS and no communication, except by pit board. Let the drivers plan and implement their own strategy and race using their own skills and abilities.
Finally, if I hear one more team principle talking about "monetizing" the sport, it might be the last straw for me. What do these people think we do when we buy products produced by the sponsors of a formula one team? Where does the money for formula one teams come from? It may come via the sponsors, but ultimately it comes from the population who buy the products produced by the sponsors. We, the general public, pay for formula one whether we are fans or not.
Neville Menzies - South Africa
I have followed F1 passionately since the mid 60's and have been thrilled by the courage and skill of a host of brave and talented racing drivers over this time.
Alas, the sport has deteriorated into a mega dollar entertainment business which has produced a lot of mini celebs in the "Hello Magazine" mould. Hardly the stuff that legends are made of.
As much as I accept that driver safety is important, I find that the sterile environment in which they now race is so manipulated and contrived, that I am fast becoming an ex fan. The days of hero-worshipping the likes of Graham Hill, Clark, Rindt, Peterson, Senna, Hunt, Villeneuve (Snr) and so many more has been replaced by celebrities who take themselves far too seriously and race at 80% most of the time, to conserve fuel and tyres to make sure that they stay in the race, in front of the TV cameras to keep their sponsors happy.
How dare Bernie and the boys waste the astonishing engineering talent which can produce blindingly quick and reliable F1 racing cars, and have it all brought down to nothing by creating an endurance event. The drivers only need to be reasonably talented and of course, compliant and wealthy to pay for the privilege of propping up a celebrity lifestyle.
I admit that the show can be entertaining but the influence that manipulation and gimmicks have on the outcome of most races is far too contrived.
To showcase the real talents of drivers, we should have only 2 tyres developed for each race, one for wet and one for dry, based on optimal information gathered over the years. This tyre should be engineered to last the race distance + say 5% based on flat-out racing. The same for fuel. Each car should have fuel to race flat-out over the distance + 5%.
And if we have to have pit stops, then design a tyre that lasts either half race distance + 2.5% or even one third race distance + 1.5% if the powers that be want a 2 stop race.
Tactics are a part of racing, but the balance should be largely in favour of the driver. Endurance events like Le Mans are where team tacticians can have their say, and the computer fundi's and scientists can plot and plan, but F1 is about balls to the wall racing, where the quickest and most talented driver deserves to win.
Ban DRS and KERS. And for good measure I would love to see manual gear changes reintroduced.
Dennis Cinquegrani
If a team chose to "race", rather than save tires, everyone would have to race. The skill of the driver and the engineers in setting up the car to work at its optimum at each circuit, which includes the tires, is where the racing belongs. It could be much worse. Remember the caravans!!!
Gary Luck
F1 is now a farce, China qualifying on the Saturday…..no cars out, all playing the psycho games. A dull race in which we saw more strategy played than in a game of Chess, where's the racing……get rid of DRS, it's artificial, bring back re-fuelling, and go back to 2 or more tyre suppliers, ditch the in car radios, and get the drivers to change gear with a stick rather than a paddle, then we can see who the real drivers really are!
Tom Black - Canada
I have followed F1 since the first race at Silverstone in 1950, via radio, television and written reports.
In my opinion the era of refuelling and short sprints was the best bang for the viewing buck. Today we see no real racing when all of the drivers are having to carefully use their tyres in order to finish the race.
How about this as a suggestion - allow two refuelling stops, one tire specification per race, changes as often as required. Tyres to be designed to last approximately 100 miles.
Eliminate DRS. Take an in depth look at hybrid technology. I do not see the advantage of the existing usage since all of the cars have the same virtual sytem, so who really benefits?
These thoughts may be a little radical or even considered retrograde but the racing could be made much more engaging than that what we watch today.
Mike Pepper
I take issue with your view that they tyre farce is not Pirelli's fault. If they are prepared to simply do as they are told and then say 'it's not our fault' they ought to go somewhere else. They know and we know they can do better than this, so as long as they carry on allowing themselves to look stupid, then the name of their range, PZero, tells you exactly what chance they have of selling me tyres.
The DRS system is equally farcical. Effectively drivers are being told that if someone catches you up, move over, slow down and let him past.
If that is the only way you can build overtaking into F1 than it really is in a sorry state.
Many of the rules that the general public won't be aware of choke off any car development during the season. Engine specs must be agreed before the season begins, even gear ratios have to be nominated before any racing begins. The rules are so strict that there is no room for any kind of innovative thinking by the designers apart from some of the weird aero devices that usually get chucked out if they work anyway.
I suspect people like Colin Chapman are probably rolling around giggling in their graves.
Andrew Skinner
I've been watching F1 for a little over 6 Years. Since that time we've seen some drastic changes to the sport;
1) Fuel Pit Stops
2) Tyre Manufactures
3) Engine Power
4) Regulations
The list could go on if we where to elaborate into detail. I will be the first to say I'm by no means an expert in F1, and my knowledge of the Sport barely scratches the surface, though in my humble opinion, I personally feel the FIA should do at least one, or two of the bellow;
1) Bring back Fuel pit stops, if not try the below;
2) Get a better tyre, at least one that could last the whole race and perhaps offer a softer quicker tyre so it gives the option of strategy to go a two, three stop to change the softer tyre, but is a few tenths, dare I say second quicker per lap
3) Relax with the regulations, being a massive fan of Adrian Newey he has done some amazing things for the sport, and has played a key role in some of the most successful cars in F1. I think they should be free to design what they wish, within reason.
For the uneducated f1 fan, like myself, the tyre situation seems frustrating, and I dare say confusing. I can only try and imagine being an f1 driver, and more importantly one who has experienced the older compounds and known what it was like, opposed to what it is today and think of some of the recent analogies, like Lewis Hamilton's perspective of having $100 and having to spend it over a period of time.
I think get rid of the Tyres, get some better racing compounds and bring back fuel pit stops.
Andrew Macpherson
If we had straight racing the Red Bulls would clear off over the horizon!
I think that teams should run whatever configurations they choose, either run a softer 'qualifying' compound and allow refueling to see if they think that strategy will work, or a harder compound able to do the race in a single stint, and see who comes out where. However the current racing has me just reading the results here on Monday, it isn't interesting enough to watch anymore. I'm happy Moto GP starts this weekend, now that's racing!
Mario Martinelli - Victoria, Canada
I love Formula 1 and have been a fan since the 50s, but lately it seems that the 'spirit' of competition is being sacrificed for 'the show.' I find it ludicrous that engine configurations are fixed, for example. It is ludicrous that RPMs are limited. I'm waiting for them to decided all cars must have X number of gears, run the same ratios, use the same brake shoes and buy the same car jacks. To save money of course.
Pirelli, in doing as they are told, are doing an excellent job. They are also revealing to me that they are capable of making a street tire that will pancake after 10,000 km. Now THAT would be a money maker for a few years, no? It seems that every element of competition is being removed from the sport.
Engine refueling wasn't eliminated for safety reasons, it was banned because Bernie prefers the 'chess game' to 'racing.' I want to see the best cars run the best they can when they can as often as they can.
Too much downforce = difficulty following, and subsequently passing. Hey! Let's invent/develop KERS! Ooh, that didn't work! Well, let's keep all the advertising space and invent/develop DRS!!! Wow! Now cars can be passed effortlessly. We know this because the famous phrase "He'll be a sitting duck in the DRS zone" is being repeated a dozen times each race. Thank you, Mr. Coulthard.
And in the name of safety, let us ban G. Villeneuve 'tactics' such as those employed in a memorable Spanish race that resulted in what, five cars finishing within two seconds of each other? Boring? Sure, Gilles became a 'moving chicaine,' but the spectacle was just that: a spectacle. It was brilliant tactical driving and made for an unforgettable race. I don't remember a plethora of accidents up front.
Just in case a team can make a four or ten or twelve cylinder engine that smokes everyone, let's not allow that!
Parity is wonderful in children's sports. Until the age of eight. Frankly, the 'soul' of F1 is being removed piecemeal. I'm shocked Bernie hasn't decided to name a single chassis supplier. And engine supplier. I honestly am.
And no matter how much they try to level the playing field (read: choke off innovation in the interest of (ahem!) fiscal responsibility), it still appears teams that spend the most money are usually at the top of the table.
Repeat: The Teams That Spend the Most Money Are At the Top of the Table!
Say that three times and then ask yourself how they will 'level the playing field' next time.
And finally, once I have to pay to watch a F1 telecast I will stop watching. I only hope that the available free highlights will include all the pit stops. After all, except for minor instances, that's where all the 'racing' is.
Harold Malle
The problem seems to be that we all want close racing, with plenty of passing and means that we want parity amongst all the teams. That will never happen. There has never been parity amongst all teams. At best, only the top three or four and the bottom three or four have achieved parity amongst themselves.
You would be correct in thinking that it is all about strategy and risk for reward. My suggestion is to open things up a little.
Let the tire supplier bring two compounds to each race weekend. The teams can use what ever combination they wish in qualifying but for the race they must only choose one compound and they will be allowed adjustments to the suspension settings and the like until the parade lap (no more parc ferme). Teams will be forced to adapt their strategies to driver style, car handling etc. A smaller team thinking creatively may be able to surprise.
That's it for the tires in my opinion.
My other change would be to the aero. Get rid of all the multi-element front wings and all the winglets and extraneous add-ons that that stuck on in the name of aero efficiency. I want to see clean cars that require less expensive wind tunnel time. The DRS can change as well. If one is to keep DRS , then allow each car approximately 200 seconds of DRS use each race, to be used at the team's/driver's discretion. Again, a little more strategy.
There will be no solution that pleases everyone. The best one can do is compromise in an effort to make the racing exciting and sustainable for the teams participating.