FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Jabberwocky]

But this year it will be 20 seconds up the road until they pop lol

Sent using NCC-1701

[spankyham]

But the GP2cars were going faster last year because of spaghetti tyres.

??

Gp2 cars were lapping at catalyuna faster than F1 cars last year

Indeed that is correct. However, fundamentally the F1 car was clearly superior. This years F1 car .... well, driven by the "lets have a budget/spending cap at all costs" disciples has simply led us to cars that are 6 seconds slower than last year and 10 seconds slower than 10 years ago

The worse part is, there is no easy way to reverse or fix it

Well if we didn't have those people we'd be watching two Ferraris and two red bulls drive around a track. And the red bulls would still have been 20 seconds up the road.

I just don't agree. I think the past century of GP racing proves it.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

[spankyham]

But this year it will be 20 seconds up the road until they pop lol

Sent using NCC-1701

Right now I think they'd consider reliably getting 20 seconds down the road an improvement

[youtube]7LKIo0jNdaA[/youtube]


Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

[NHcheese]

But this year it will be 20 seconds up the road until they pop lol

Sent using NCC-1701

Right now I think they'd consider reliably getting 20 seconds down the road an improvement

[youtube]7LKIo0jNdaA[/youtube]


Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

I don't like red bull, but that's kinda harsh don't you think?

[What's Burning?]

A bit harsh indeed.

[NHcheese]

you mean harsh in funny?

[spankyham]

A new take on the new sound of our 2014 new engines.

[youtube]6zdZ2fl9HOw[/youtube]

[CookinFlat6]

Funny thing is that sounds more like the 2013 car than the 2014 one. The missing ingredient is the high revving frequency. The 2014 engines sound just like DTM cars. The sound of technical complexity of high, motorcyle like revs sustained through the gears has gone for good.

To think we had cars running at 22k revs a decade ago to something like 11k ( lower peak) is really

[1Lemon]

But the GP2cars were going faster last year because of spaghetti tyres.

??

Gp2 cars were lapping at catalyuna faster than F1 cars last year

Indeed that is correct. However, fundamentally the F1 car was clearly superior. This years F1 car .... well, driven by the "lets have a budget/spending cap at all costs" disciples has simply led us to cars that are 6 seconds slower than last year and 10 seconds slower than 10 years ago

The worse part is, there is no easy way to reverse or fix it

Well if we didn't have those people we'd be watching two Ferraris and two red bulls drive around a track. And the red bulls would still have been 20 seconds up the road.

I just don't agree. I think the past century of GP racing proves it.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

Well look at it now. Sponsors need to pay vastly more money than they used to, more than ever before, they also have less incentive to sponsor F1 I.e if your company is really successful in Europe but you're not based anywhere else, why would you sponsor F1 when the cars spend half their time out your market. It used to be F1 was mostly European with the occasional fly away race but now you have to be a major major global company to sponsor F1 and most don't need to because big companys often have enough brand exposure anyway.

Then there's the cost, marussia and Caterham are what 5 seconds of race pace, for the two back teams historically that's amazing. We used to have cars that were 30/40 seconds off, however to find those 5 seconds they need 8 times their budget (red bull spent 8 times as much in 2013).

The there's the declining viewing figures or the fact that when one driver and team consistently dominates (RBR/Vettel SF/Schumacher) the sponsorships and viewing figures decline.

So we don't want to end up with the situation we are rapidly approaching, the teams with the most money always win, viewing figures drop, sponsors leave and finally other teams can't afford it. The costs of running an F1 team are astronomical and so much more than historically so you cannot say that it's lasted 30 years in it's current state it'll last another 30. Put aside your devoted Ferrari glasses for just a moment and think about the sport and what's good for if, because right now F1 is tearing itself apart, and it's an exponential problem.

[sagi58]

...So we don't want to end up with the situation we are rapidly approaching, the teams with the most money always win, viewing figures drop, sponsors leave and finally other teams can't afford it. The costs of running an F1 team are astronomical and so much more than historically so you cannot say that it's lasted 30 years in it's current state it'll last another 30. Put aside your devoted Ferrari glasses for just a moment and think about the sport and what's good for if, because right now F1 is tearing itself apart, and it's an exponential problem.

If I'm a sponsor, I'm looking to advertise my product/service in a market that will give me the most exposure for my product
for the least amount of money. That is, I want the biggest bang for my advertising buck. It's that simple.

The thing is, I can add the line ""Proud sponsor of F1"" regardless of which team I end up giving my money to. It's that simple.
Obviously, the more successful teams are going to be viewed on TV/internet more often and their picture will show up in
print more often; but, so what? In my preferred market, I still get to advertise that I proudly support F1!

Sure, today's costs are astronomical; but, it would be more realistic/prudent to analyze the cost:profit ratio rather than to
simply look at the bottom line. That's because just as the costs have risen, so have the ticket prices, the merchandise sales,
the worldwide/market exposure, etc.

If we see problems in F1, as it stands, I'm going to suggest that it's not just because "back in the day" there were no problems,
rather I'm betting that it's because we are more aware thanks to the increase in media coverage, which is also more readily
accessible that it just to be, just because the F1 fan "wants to know"!

That has nothing to do with my being a devoted Ferrari fan, that's just the way everything is today. Things cost more, we make
more, we know more, we want more. Consumerism at its finest!

[spankyham]

So we don't want to end up with the situation we are rapidly approaching, the teams with the most money always win, viewing figures drop, sponsors leave and finally other teams can't afford it.

Personally I think the more you restrict and cap the more you guarantee the richest win. The last 15 years have had the most rules and efforts made in caps and restrictions and look at what happened.

The costs of running an F1 team are astronomical

That's been true every decade. By definition that's what being at the leading edge means

Put aside your devoted Ferrari glasses for just a moment and think about the sport

I think my view on this is for the good of F1. Perhaps you're a little mired in past perceptions and bias. The truth is, and has been for quite some time, that Ferrari is way behind the top two teams when it comes to money to spend and people working for them. But that doesn't bother me one little bit.

What needs to happen to "rescue" F1 IMO is that mountains of rules needs to be thrown out - for a long time I've said they should simply give teams an annual fuel allocation and a per event fuel allocation. Tell the teams they can build any donk they like and test as much as they like with the fuel they are given. Let the smaller teams have room to create. That's how it worked in the past. The garragistas won because they could be creative even though they had nowhere near resources of the big teams.

However, I fully recognise that there is little to no chance that what I want will happen. We are careening down the rule-mountain-cap-limit path, so your view will continue to prevail. I just think it will simply continue to diminish F1.

[CookinFlat6]

Let the smaller teams have room to create. That's how it worked in the past. The garragistas won because they could be creative even though they had nowhere near resources of the big teams.

And how many of those garagistas are still around who were not owned by manufacturers with deep pockets?

[racechick]

you think Ferrari have less money than Red Bull and Merc??

[CookinFlat6]

2013 F1 Teams: Value for Budget
Team Budget* (in millions of £) Points £ Per Point (in millions of £)
Red Bull 235.5 596 0.40
Lotus 130 315 0.41
Mercedes 160 360 0.44
Ferrari 250 354 0.71
FI 100 77 1.30
McLaren 160 122 1.31
Sauber 90 57 1.58
STR 70 33 2.12
Williams 90 5 18.00
Marussia 51 0 –
Caterham 65 0 –

[CookinFlat6]

Personally I think the more you restrict and cap the more you guarantee the richest win.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/sports/autoracing/in-formula-one-deep-pockets-dont-guarantee-victory.html