Its speculated that Bernie's PRISM program regularly scans this forum for good ideas on how to "improve the show". Even if that is not true, he may (allegedly) soon have plenty of time to surf the web.
So what are your suggestions for "show improvers" for Bernie?
Rules, all stupid suggestions should be short and amusing.
Serious suggestions should be very long, and supported by diagrams, PhD theses, and other intellectual stuff.
Suggestion 1. All drivers must be Japanese. Bring back Kobiyashi, SATO!!, Inoue, etc. etc.
Improving the Show
-
Ross Prawn
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 03 Apr 2009, 22:42
- Location: Here
Improving the Show
"Other than the car behind and the driver who might get a bit startled with the sudden explosion in front, it really isn't a major safety issue from that point of view,"
-
go_Rubens
- Posts: 3415
- Joined: 25 Mar 2013, 21:12
- Location: A raging river somewhere in the Eastern (cough) United States (cough)
Re: Improving the Show
From a fan's point of view, and (previously) crazed fan of the Formula 1 World Championship, I have a few ideas.
Time for changes to the cars. Number 1 for car changes would be smaller wings. Smaller wings would reduce downforce, and since we are getting smaller wings next year, that's all cool. But I'd like smaller than 15 cm narrower. Or, widen the cars like the mid 90s, and keep the wings for next year. As this reduces downforce, and makes the cars less aerodynamically efficient, we won't need DRS to create on-track passes. Plus, there would be more driver skill involved, and keeping the turbos with the ERS with these changes to the cars would be quite awesome and provide no need for an artificial device such as DRS. Number 2 is to ban power steering. Why? Well, F1 drivers are supposed to be the best in the world. If you make the cars harder to drive, then you'd get more moments where drivers have to pull epic saves or just saves that add a little bit of spice to a lap or a driver's race. Plus, it would SLOW the cars down. Doesn't the FIA want that? Also, these first 2 ideas combined would be awesome in my opinion, and if you add Number 3, which is allowing for small flimsy bits so that teams can go crazy with small devices to improve performances, like the grooved tyre era where everyone had their own unique parts on the sidepods, except only on the ends of the sidepods near the rear tyre, so there is little risk of the parts falling off after contact with another car. Add the usual safety mods you'd make, and that's a F1 car I'd be proud to watch, look at, and see a fantastic race. Another thing is to allow freedom in gearbox design and engine design, with a budget cap. You should allow 6 speed and 7 speed gearboxes, so that you can see teams come up with innovative designs to give a 6 speed gearbox an advantage over a 7 speed gearbox. Engines should have a bit of freedom. Allow tight, but not too restrictive regs on engines, and find a way to decrease costs on engine development. I'd pay to see these come into play.
Now, for track changes. Time for modifications to the runoff areas, kerbs, and astroturf, and maybe other stuff. Number 1 is to change the kerbing. The FIA really lacks imagination in terms of kerbing. The kerbing right now is flat and non-effective, while half the time there's a ridiculously high kerb right behind the normal kerb. There is no need for the high kerb beyond the normal kerb. The high kerbs have already proven to be dangerous, and at Abu Dhabi, India, and Austin are they really an issue. Abu Dhabi's kerbs have proven they can launch cars in the air quite nicely if you like carnage and action. We like action, but not carnage, like this year's GP2 Feature race at Abu Dhabi, where Jon Lancaster's car was hit on the side air intake by a car launched by a kerb. The car landed on top of Lancaster's and Lancaster tweaked his neck after the front wing of the other car hit his helmet. This would have been much, much worse at higher speeds. Lancaster is a very lucky driver to have got away with such a minor injury. Austin showed that prototype cars, which are heavier than F1 cars, can be launched into the air, at the spring race at Austin in the Grand-Am Rolex series where Scott Pruett launched his Daytona prototype straight into the air and back down violently on the track after trying an adventurous move, like Bottas on Gutiérrez in this year's F1 race at turn 3. When his car came down, he lost the whole nose and the nose piece landed in a percarious spot. His team were very lucky to finish 3rd that day. So, what's the improvement? Take out the kerbs beyond the normal ones, and raise the normal ones. Only one set of kerbs will stand, and design the, in a way so that the cars won't launch as easily off of them. Back to the 70s to the mid 90s! Plus, there are some corners that just simply don't need kerbing at all. Turn 9 at Austin doesn't need the kerbing on the exit if the corner there; no one uses the kerbs there unless they lose control, so just keep astrofurf there. Or grass, even better. Which leads to my next point. Number 2 is the runoff areas. The runoff areas should be like Paul Ricard, friction pads, so if a driver goes off, it punishes the tyres. The runoff areas should also be a certain distance away from the track, so drivers can't use them to cut corners and gain an advantage. The certain distance should be about 5 meters away from the track itself for the runoff area to start, and the neutral zone in between the runoff and the track be gravel or grass (or sand in the case of Bahrain). This way, no one uses the runoff to gain an advantage as they can gain a disadvantage by going over the grass or gravel, or sand. This would be wonderful in a wet race. The neutral zone shall not contain astroturf, as the cars can easily use that to gain an advantage. In fact, nothing needs to be done to astroturf, as long as it's placed correctly (as in not the stuff in Korea), and use it in reasonable ares that I've pointed out. Think of it this way, if the tracks were modified this way, you may spend quite a bit of money modifying the tracks, but think of how much you might save when you build new ones.
Third is the fact that F1's official Twitter account must be run by Taki Inoue. You'll gain a lot of publicity!
Time for changes to the cars. Number 1 for car changes would be smaller wings. Smaller wings would reduce downforce, and since we are getting smaller wings next year, that's all cool. But I'd like smaller than 15 cm narrower. Or, widen the cars like the mid 90s, and keep the wings for next year. As this reduces downforce, and makes the cars less aerodynamically efficient, we won't need DRS to create on-track passes. Plus, there would be more driver skill involved, and keeping the turbos with the ERS with these changes to the cars would be quite awesome and provide no need for an artificial device such as DRS. Number 2 is to ban power steering. Why? Well, F1 drivers are supposed to be the best in the world. If you make the cars harder to drive, then you'd get more moments where drivers have to pull epic saves or just saves that add a little bit of spice to a lap or a driver's race. Plus, it would SLOW the cars down. Doesn't the FIA want that? Also, these first 2 ideas combined would be awesome in my opinion, and if you add Number 3, which is allowing for small flimsy bits so that teams can go crazy with small devices to improve performances, like the grooved tyre era where everyone had their own unique parts on the sidepods, except only on the ends of the sidepods near the rear tyre, so there is little risk of the parts falling off after contact with another car. Add the usual safety mods you'd make, and that's a F1 car I'd be proud to watch, look at, and see a fantastic race. Another thing is to allow freedom in gearbox design and engine design, with a budget cap. You should allow 6 speed and 7 speed gearboxes, so that you can see teams come up with innovative designs to give a 6 speed gearbox an advantage over a 7 speed gearbox. Engines should have a bit of freedom. Allow tight, but not too restrictive regs on engines, and find a way to decrease costs on engine development. I'd pay to see these come into play.
Now, for track changes. Time for modifications to the runoff areas, kerbs, and astroturf, and maybe other stuff. Number 1 is to change the kerbing. The FIA really lacks imagination in terms of kerbing. The kerbing right now is flat and non-effective, while half the time there's a ridiculously high kerb right behind the normal kerb. There is no need for the high kerb beyond the normal kerb. The high kerbs have already proven to be dangerous, and at Abu Dhabi, India, and Austin are they really an issue. Abu Dhabi's kerbs have proven they can launch cars in the air quite nicely if you like carnage and action. We like action, but not carnage, like this year's GP2 Feature race at Abu Dhabi, where Jon Lancaster's car was hit on the side air intake by a car launched by a kerb. The car landed on top of Lancaster's and Lancaster tweaked his neck after the front wing of the other car hit his helmet. This would have been much, much worse at higher speeds. Lancaster is a very lucky driver to have got away with such a minor injury. Austin showed that prototype cars, which are heavier than F1 cars, can be launched into the air, at the spring race at Austin in the Grand-Am Rolex series where Scott Pruett launched his Daytona prototype straight into the air and back down violently on the track after trying an adventurous move, like Bottas on Gutiérrez in this year's F1 race at turn 3. When his car came down, he lost the whole nose and the nose piece landed in a percarious spot. His team were very lucky to finish 3rd that day. So, what's the improvement? Take out the kerbs beyond the normal ones, and raise the normal ones. Only one set of kerbs will stand, and design the, in a way so that the cars won't launch as easily off of them. Back to the 70s to the mid 90s! Plus, there are some corners that just simply don't need kerbing at all. Turn 9 at Austin doesn't need the kerbing on the exit if the corner there; no one uses the kerbs there unless they lose control, so just keep astrofurf there. Or grass, even better. Which leads to my next point. Number 2 is the runoff areas. The runoff areas should be like Paul Ricard, friction pads, so if a driver goes off, it punishes the tyres. The runoff areas should also be a certain distance away from the track, so drivers can't use them to cut corners and gain an advantage. The certain distance should be about 5 meters away from the track itself for the runoff area to start, and the neutral zone in between the runoff and the track be gravel or grass (or sand in the case of Bahrain). This way, no one uses the runoff to gain an advantage as they can gain a disadvantage by going over the grass or gravel, or sand. This would be wonderful in a wet race. The neutral zone shall not contain astroturf, as the cars can easily use that to gain an advantage. In fact, nothing needs to be done to astroturf, as long as it's placed correctly (as in not the stuff in Korea), and use it in reasonable ares that I've pointed out. Think of it this way, if the tracks were modified this way, you may spend quite a bit of money modifying the tracks, but think of how much you might save when you build new ones.
Third is the fact that F1's official Twitter account must be run by Taki Inoue. You'll gain a lot of publicity!
Felipe Baby, Stay Cool
Albert Einstein wrote:Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
Re: Improving the Show
1. Safety: the biggest problems in modern single-seater racing are a) cars getting airborne, and b) objects ore other cars hitting the drivers' head. a) hasn't been much of a problem in Formula 1 currently, so that leaves problem b). Completely closed cars have been proposed, but there were concerns if the driver could get out of the car, f.e. in case of a fire. So my proposal would be a windscreen, which doesn't completely cover the car, but would deflect most objects coming close to the drivers head.
2. Innovations: Modern Formula 1 rules are very restrictive. As a result, there haven't been any notable innovations in Formula 1, apart from aerodynamic things like exhaust blown diffusers or f-ducts. I would design the rules for the engine similar to thecurrent LMP1 rules. Pretty much free engine design, but limited amount of fuel. Also, allow for more innovation for energy recovery systems. In WEC LMP1, these systems are allowed to recover 8MJ per lap at Le Mans, which is around 4 MJ on a usual F1 circuit. The new F1 regs allow 2 MJ per lap. This is about half as much as the LMP1 rules allow.
3. The cars' looks: Let's face it, modern F1 cars are ugly. At least most of them. Lower rear wings, and narrower front wings should fix a bit. The lower noses, which are mandated for 2014, could look quite ugly, and the noses are effectively not much lower. To fix that issue, I would mandate the teams to run a convex nosecone.
4. The Show: I have a quite radical suggestion: Ban team radio! Not completely, but for everything that is not related to safety. So, for example, if the team sees that the car is close to having a brakes failure, it should still be able to call the driver into the pits. But it would stop drivers being "remote-controlled" by their race engineer. The driver would have to think more, which was originally one of the ideas behind KERS and rapidly degrading tyres.
Formula 1's reaction to boring races has been gimmicks, gimmicks and even more gimmicks. Has the show improved? Not much. Has the sport suffered from it? Certainly. I already made a proposal to improve the show by banning team radio. My next suggestion: remove the gimmicks. Get rid of DRS and the "both tyre types"-rule. Now we're back to pure motorsport, but what could be done to improve the show? To cope with the lack of overtaking, massively reduce downforce, and especially in those areas which cause the "dirty air". If the need for DRS cannot be eliminated easily, then turn it into a push-to-pass system like they use in IndyCar. Each driver gets the same amount of DRS uses. It would still be a bit gimmicky, but a lot better then what we have now.
5. Customer cars: For a good show, you need competetive teams. To make getting into Formula 1 easier, I would allow all teams outside the top 5 to sell their car to a customer team. That way, teams like Sauber or Force India could make a bit of money, while making it easier for new teams to enter Formula 1. New teams should be allowed to run customer cars for two years, before having to build their own cars. Entries should be capped at 15 teams. 26 cars should be allowed on the grid. Customer teams are ineligible to score constructors' championship points, so they don't hurt the midfield and backmarker constructors.
2. Innovations: Modern Formula 1 rules are very restrictive. As a result, there haven't been any notable innovations in Formula 1, apart from aerodynamic things like exhaust blown diffusers or f-ducts. I would design the rules for the engine similar to thecurrent LMP1 rules. Pretty much free engine design, but limited amount of fuel. Also, allow for more innovation for energy recovery systems. In WEC LMP1, these systems are allowed to recover 8MJ per lap at Le Mans, which is around 4 MJ on a usual F1 circuit. The new F1 regs allow 2 MJ per lap. This is about half as much as the LMP1 rules allow.
3. The cars' looks: Let's face it, modern F1 cars are ugly. At least most of them. Lower rear wings, and narrower front wings should fix a bit. The lower noses, which are mandated for 2014, could look quite ugly, and the noses are effectively not much lower. To fix that issue, I would mandate the teams to run a convex nosecone.
4. The Show: I have a quite radical suggestion: Ban team radio! Not completely, but for everything that is not related to safety. So, for example, if the team sees that the car is close to having a brakes failure, it should still be able to call the driver into the pits. But it would stop drivers being "remote-controlled" by their race engineer. The driver would have to think more, which was originally one of the ideas behind KERS and rapidly degrading tyres.
Formula 1's reaction to boring races has been gimmicks, gimmicks and even more gimmicks. Has the show improved? Not much. Has the sport suffered from it? Certainly. I already made a proposal to improve the show by banning team radio. My next suggestion: remove the gimmicks. Get rid of DRS and the "both tyre types"-rule. Now we're back to pure motorsport, but what could be done to improve the show? To cope with the lack of overtaking, massively reduce downforce, and especially in those areas which cause the "dirty air". If the need for DRS cannot be eliminated easily, then turn it into a push-to-pass system like they use in IndyCar. Each driver gets the same amount of DRS uses. It would still be a bit gimmicky, but a lot better then what we have now.
5. Customer cars: For a good show, you need competetive teams. To make getting into Formula 1 easier, I would allow all teams outside the top 5 to sell their car to a customer team. That way, teams like Sauber or Force India could make a bit of money, while making it easier for new teams to enter Formula 1. New teams should be allowed to run customer cars for two years, before having to build their own cars. Entries should be capped at 15 teams. 26 cars should be allowed on the grid. Customer teams are ineligible to score constructors' championship points, so they don't hurt the midfield and backmarker constructors.
pasta_maldonado wrote:The stewards have recommended that Alan Jones learns to drive.
Re: Improving the Show
1. Run-offs: Some of the new tracks have runoffs filled with tarmac and tarmac. 3/4 of them must be changed to grass and gravel.
2. Circuits: This maybe ridiculous but I wanted F1 to race at oval. Tune the engine down by 2000 rpm, use 2011 Pirelli hard compound.
3. Cars: Every car must be designed in a way to improve overtake (aka reduce air turbulence at the back)
4. Teams: I like to have 30 cars in the field, with 108% rule applied.
5, Action: Rolling starts.....
2. Circuits: This maybe ridiculous but I wanted F1 to race at oval. Tune the engine down by 2000 rpm, use 2011 Pirelli hard compound.
3. Cars: Every car must be designed in a way to improve overtake (aka reduce air turbulence at the back)
4. Teams: I like to have 30 cars in the field, with 108% rule applied.
5, Action: Rolling starts.....
Rio Haryanto for the win!
He upon seeing me accidentaly paint Belgian flag rotated 90 deg to right
tommykl returns from the bathroom
tommykl reads the chat logs
tommykl has a stroke
He upon seeing me accidentaly paint Belgian flag rotated 90 deg to right
tommykl returns from the bathroom
tommykl reads the chat logs
tommykl has a stroke
Re: Improving the Show
Teams that manage to race with rear wings upfront and front wings in the rear win 10x more points.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
-
Ross Prawn
- Posts: 724
- Joined: 03 Apr 2009, 22:42
- Location: Here
Re: Improving the Show
Donuts should be compulsory. All cars must pull at least one 360 during the course of the race.
"Other than the car behind and the driver who might get a bit startled with the sudden explosion in front, it really isn't a major safety issue from that point of view,"
Re: Improving the Show
The amount of points scored in a Grand Prix will be multiplied with the amount of money (in $) paid to FOM for holding the race, and divided by 1 000 000.
Points are awarded for:
-fastest lap
-pole position
-IIDOTR
-ROTR
-best helmet design
-most laps in practice
-most spectacular accident
-rolling Trabants
Points are awarded for:
-fastest lap
-pole position
-IIDOTR
-ROTR
-best helmet design
-most laps in practice
-most spectacular accident
-rolling Trabants
pasta_maldonado wrote:The stewards have recommended that Alan Jones learns to drive.
Re: Improving the Show
Increase ground effect and rear tyre size while reducing the size of the wings.
I very much like the ideas of friction pad run off areas and redesigned kerbs. The friction pads would make sense from a safety perspective too as they would slow the cars quicker. Is that right?
Ban the gimmicks and team radio. Great idea again.
I very much like the ideas of friction pad run off areas and redesigned kerbs. The friction pads would make sense from a safety perspective too as they would slow the cars quicker. Is that right?
Ban the gimmicks and team radio. Great idea again.
Re: Improving the Show
Race wins to be decided by a reality-show-style phone-in by the audience. Drivers will have the opportunity to explain (with some sad music playing in the background) how much each win will mean to them, how they've been on a journey, how they are what this sports all about and how poorly some relative is. After the title has been decided they then have to record a song competing for the Christmas number one spot.
Please dont phone or text before the lines have opened as your vote won't count and you may still be charged.
Please dont phone or text before the lines have opened as your vote won't count and you may still be charged.
Just For One Day...
Re: Improving the Show
CoopsII wrote:Race wins to be decided by a reality-show-style phone-in by the audience. Drivers will have the opportunity to explain (with some sad music playing in the background) how much each win will mean to them, how they've been on a journey, how they are what this sports all about and how poorly some relative is. After the title has been decided they then have to record a song competing for the Christmas number one spot.
Please dont phone or text before the lines have opened as your vote won't count and you may still be charged.
This gives me the idea that, starting at 600 bhp, an extra amount of horsepower per lap should be made available to each driver depending on the percentage of support gathered by these phone calls in the last lap.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
Re: Improving the Show
DanielPT wrote:CoopsII wrote:Race wins to be decided by a reality-show-style phone-in by the audience. Drivers will have the opportunity to explain (with some sad music playing in the background) how much each win will mean to them, how they've been on a journey, how they are what this sports all about and how poorly some relative is. After the title has been decided they then have to record a song competing for the Christmas number one spot.
Please dont phone or text before the lines have opened as your vote won't count and you may still be charged.
This gives me the idea that, starting at 600 bhp, an extra amount of horsepower per lap should be made available to each driver depending on the percentage of support gathered by these phone calls in the last lap.
Its a good idea but my thinking was we could do away with all that tedious driving about and just let Joe Public decide.
Just For One Day...
Re: Improving the Show
CoopsII wrote:DanielPT wrote:CoopsII wrote:Race wins to be decided by a reality-show-style phone-in by the audience. Drivers will have the opportunity to explain (with some sad music playing in the background) how much each win will mean to them, how they've been on a journey, how they are what this sports all about and how poorly some relative is. After the title has been decided they then have to record a song competing for the Christmas number one spot.
Please dont phone or text before the lines have opened as your vote won't count and you may still be charged.
This gives me the idea that, starting at 600 bhp, an extra amount of horsepower per lap should be made available to each driver depending on the percentage of support gathered by these phone calls in the last lap.
Its a good idea but my thinking was we could do away with all that tedious driving about and just let Joe Public decide.
Hum... And are we also allowed to vote on who quits and who joins F1?
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
Re: Improving the Show
Sure. We can also include a wildcard for each race with examples such as that jeep thing, a driverless Marussia and the fire-car that knocked down Taki Inoue. And Taki Inoue.
And a once a year chance to vote and select the tracks we visit. Plus let them choose a retired driver to make a one race come back, c'mon Stirling Moss lets see how good you are when you're in a Caterham, not so legendary now are you? ARE YOU??!?
And a once a year chance to vote and select the tracks we visit. Plus let them choose a retired driver to make a one race come back, c'mon Stirling Moss lets see how good you are when you're in a Caterham, not so legendary now are you? ARE YOU??!?
Just For One Day...
Re: Improving the Show
CoopsII wrote:Sure. We can also include a wildcard for each race with examples such as that jeep thing, a driverless Marussia and the fire-car that knocked down Taki Inoue. And Taki Inoue.
And a once a year chance to vote and select the tracks we visit. Plus let them choose a retired driver to make a one race come back, c'mon Stirling Moss lets see how good you are when you're in a Caterham, not so legendary now are you? ARE YOU??!?
Okay them! I am happy to help promote your idea.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
Re: Improving the Show
Expanding the grid to about 18 teams (instead of the 11 we have now) and have Pre-Q... None of these new teams will do well obviously but we'll have more than one team to call our own!!
Oh, and the old points system will also be good.
Oh, and the old points system will also be good.
-
GwilymJJames
- Posts: 936
- Joined: 23 Apr 2010, 20:29
- Location: Milton Keynes
Re: Improving the Show
Do away with driver points. Instead, every race win will earn that driver an extra five seconds of time inside the crystal dome. At the end of the season all drivers with time will go into the dome to try and collect as many gold credits as they can. Any silver credits will be deducted from their total. Whoever has the most credits - after deductions - will win the super fantastic numero-uno prize, probably a kayaking trip somewhere.
WARNING: Vettel fan.
Shut up Eccles!
Shut up Eccles!
Re: Improving the Show
BigG80 wrote:Increase ground effect and rear tyre size while reducing the size of the wings.
I don't think so. Changing the aerodynamic regulations to make them even more prescriptive only means that the teams will throw more resources at aerodynamic development to claw back the downforce that has been lost. They do this through inefficient L/D ratios, with so-called 'dirty downforce', so the same amount of downforce or negative lift is being generated but with greater drag, causing the turbulent wake being the car. As it stands, aerodynamics has the greatest potential effect on vehicle performance. If the idea is to take the emphasis away from aerodynamics, then there has to be another area with a better margin for improvement, so the teams don't continue throwing more resources into aerodynamics. This would have to be achieved by freeing up the technical regulations in every other area, to allow the performance research to come from engine, transmission, electronics, braking, suspension, energy recovery systems, etc. instead of aerodynamics.
Just reducing or increasing the size of aerodynamic components has never worked, will continue to not work and will only make the situation worse.
Last edited by Faustus on 13 Dec 2013, 19:40, edited 5 times in total.
Following Formula 1 since 1984.
Avid collector of Formula 1 season guides and reviews.
Collector of reject merchandise and 1/43rd scale reject model cars.
Avid collector of Formula 1 season guides and reviews.
Collector of reject merchandise and 1/43rd scale reject model cars.
Re: Improving the Show
GwilymJJames wrote:Do away with driver points. Instead, every race win will earn that driver an extra five seconds of time inside the crystal dome. At the end of the season all drivers with time will go into the dome to try and collect as many gold credits as they can. Any silver credits will be deducted from their total. Whoever has the most credits - after deductions - will win the super fantastic numero-uno prize, probably a kayaking trip somewhere.
Hmm. BeforeI I commit my support would it be Richard O Brien or Eddy Tenpole-Tudor with them?
Just For One Day...
-
watka
- Site Donor
- Posts: 4097
- Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 19:04
- Location: Chessington, the former home of Brabham
- Contact:
Re: Improving the Show
CoopsII wrote:GwilymJJames wrote:Do away with driver points. Instead, every race win will earn that driver an extra five seconds of time inside the crystal dome. At the end of the season all drivers with time will go into the dome to try and collect as many gold credits as they can. Any silver credits will be deducted from their total. Whoever has the most credits - after deductions - will win the super fantastic numero-uno prize, probably a kayaking trip somewhere.
Hmm. BeforeI I commit my support would it be Richard O Brien or Eddy Tenpole-Tudor with them?
This is a fantastic idea. It would have to be Richard O'Brien though, by far the better presenter and harmonica player. Although these days he looks a little different...
I really like GoRubens idea re: runoffs. Tarmaced run offs let drivers get away with far too much and look ridiculous (see some of my previous comments about Austin in other threads). On the other hand, gravel and grass are dangerous as they either don't stop the cars quick enough (you can't use the cars braking power - see Luciano Burti's horrific crash at Spa) or they dig in and role. Having either abrasive run off or a small runoff of grass with an outside parameter of tarmac runoff is the best of both worlds.
Watka - you know, the swimming horses guy
Re: Improving the Show
watka wrote:CoopsII wrote:GwilymJJames wrote:Do away with driver points. Instead, every race win will earn that driver an extra five seconds of time inside the crystal dome. At the end of the season all drivers with time will go into the dome to try and collect as many gold credits as they can. Any silver credits will be deducted from their total. Whoever has the most credits - after deductions - will win the super fantastic numero-uno prize, probably a kayaking trip somewhere.
Hmm. BeforeI I commit my support would it be Richard O Brien or Eddy Tenpole-Tudor with them?
This is a fantastic idea. It would have to be Richard O'Brien though, by far the better presenter and harmonica player. Although these days he looks a little different...
Er. You could say that...
Yes they are small boobies he has now.
Just For One Day...
Re: Improving the Show
Faustus wrote:BigG80 wrote:Increase ground effect and rear tyre size while reducing the size of the wings.
I don't think so. Changing the aerodynamic regulations to make them even more prescriptive only means that the teams will throw more resources at aerodynamic development to claw back the downforce that has been lost. They do this through inefficient L/D ratios, with so-called 'dirty downforce', so the same amount of downforce or negative lift is being generated but with greater drag, causing the turbulent wake being the car. s it stands, aerodynamics has the greatest potential effect on vehicle performance. If the idea is to take the emphasis away from aerodynamics, then there has to be another area with a better margin for improvement, so the teams don't continue throwing more resources into aerodynamics. This would have to be achieved by freeing up the technical regulations in every other area, to allow the performance research to come from engine, transmission, electronics, braking, suspension, energy recovery systems, etc. instead of aerodynamics.
Just reducing or increasing the size of aerodynamic components has never worked, will continue to not work and will only make the situation worse.
A good example of that issue can be seen in the WEC, a series where aero rules are still reasonably strict but with comparatively laxer engine development regulations - even there there is still a reasonably heavy emphasis on aerodynamic performance.
Whilst Audi might trumpet the work that they do on engine development, there have been suggestions that, at times, their engine was in fact inferior to Peugeot's engine, but with Audi making up that difference through superior aerodynamics. Their drivetrain was also thought to be a little behind Peugeot's system too (for a start, only recently switched from a five speed to a six speed gearbox, a change they admitted they'd wanted to make for some time for fuel economy and optimising the engine torque band, whereas Peugeot had a six speed gearbox right from the start), and whilst they trumpet their efforts with hybrid drive systems, it should be remembered that Peugeot developed a version of the 908 with KERS several years ahead of Audi, only for the ACO to refuse them permission to race the system.
Equally, although Audi have trumpeted their investment in their hybrid drive system - which is in fact Williams's proprietary flywheel system - they have also invested heavily this season on a blown diffuser - that is valid for only this season - in their efforts to stay ahead of Toyota.
All in all, whilst the endless pursuit of aero development is something that many bemoan, Faustus is right to point out that, as things stand, the potential performance advantage that comes from aero development in most closed circuit racing series is higher, even in fields where there is greater flexibility on mechanical development, than the return on investment in engine development, for example.
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
Re: Improving the Show
Add another variable to race strategy other than tyres e.g. re-introduce fuel strategy. Better still, I'd turn Q3 into a 1 lap shootout round where the top 10 qualifiers are allowed only one flying lap, similar to the format in 2003-5. If refuelling were to be introduced, I would allow the teams to run with any suel loads they liked (low amounts) and then choose the fuel load before the race. This is what happened in F1 between 1994-2002.
Check out the position of the sun on 2 August at 20:08 in my garden
Allard Kalff in 1994 wrote:OH!! Schumacher in the wall! Right in front of us, Michael Schumacher is in the wall! He's hit the pitwall, he c... Ah, it's Jos Verstappen.
Re: Improving the Show
Here is something that has been turned into reality:
http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/3065 ... r-winners/
I wonder if we will see any donuts performed before the WDC has been decided, though. Remember the drivers only have 5 engines for the year, I do not think anyone will dare do it.
17 Feb
Post-F1 race donuts legalised for winners
The FIA, F1's governing body, has officially made post-race donut celebrations legal, but only for the winning driver of a grand prix.
http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/3065 ... r-winners/
I wonder if we will see any donuts performed before the WDC has been decided, though. Remember the drivers only have 5 engines for the year, I do not think anyone will dare do it.
-*:-
Re: Improving the Show
(...)but only for the winning driver of a grand prix.
I dont get this. Why not everyone? I mean, often the race is someone's home race.. or maybe the drivers would like to put up a show for the fans every so often. Let them be, let them carry a flag, or go to the crowd, climb the ..cagey thing behind the wall!
It seems FIA does make the least possible effort to allow some degree 'fun'
Re: Improving the Show
Looking back to the Indian GP last year, I found it exciting how some unfancied drivers, on the hard tyres, ran in the top 3 for a bit, namely Perez, Ricciardo and Sutil.
Even if it was not to last, I think having midfield drivers running in the top 3 in the middle of races on alternate strategies would be good for fans because it would mean there would be a muddled running order.
This might be a controversial idea, but I'm suggesting that:
1) Pirelli develop just a soft compound and a hard compound.
2) The softs, in a 60-lap race, would last for about 20-25 laps, while the hards would last for about 40
3) If you make Q3, you must start the race on softs, but you can start the race on a new set of tyres
4) If you are eliminated in Q1/2 you will start the race on hards and will also be given a fresh set
5) Q3 drivers can change tyres, but they must remain on the soft compound for the whole race, thus encouraging a 2-stop strategy
6) Q1/2 drivers can also change tyres and like the soft runners must stay on the hards for the whole race, but they will usually get away with just 1 stop
7) The hards will be about 0.3-0.5s slower than the softs
In the race, the soft runners should pull away, but when they pit around lap 20 some of them might drop behind harder runners, and therefore mixing up the running order a la India '13. But then the two groups will both pit and drivers on softs might overtake those on hards, whether it be in the pits or on track. It is possible that my philosophy would also influence an interesting finishing order.
This tyre strategy proposal is merely a way to muddle races a little and is probably unfair for Q3 runners but this would probably excite people watching the races on the television, even if it is controversial.
Even if it was not to last, I think having midfield drivers running in the top 3 in the middle of races on alternate strategies would be good for fans because it would mean there would be a muddled running order.
This might be a controversial idea, but I'm suggesting that:
1) Pirelli develop just a soft compound and a hard compound.
2) The softs, in a 60-lap race, would last for about 20-25 laps, while the hards would last for about 40
3) If you make Q3, you must start the race on softs, but you can start the race on a new set of tyres
4) If you are eliminated in Q1/2 you will start the race on hards and will also be given a fresh set
5) Q3 drivers can change tyres, but they must remain on the soft compound for the whole race, thus encouraging a 2-stop strategy
6) Q1/2 drivers can also change tyres and like the soft runners must stay on the hards for the whole race, but they will usually get away with just 1 stop
7) The hards will be about 0.3-0.5s slower than the softs
In the race, the soft runners should pull away, but when they pit around lap 20 some of them might drop behind harder runners, and therefore mixing up the running order a la India '13. But then the two groups will both pit and drivers on softs might overtake those on hards, whether it be in the pits or on track. It is possible that my philosophy would also influence an interesting finishing order.
This tyre strategy proposal is merely a way to muddle races a little and is probably unfair for Q3 runners but this would probably excite people watching the races on the television, even if it is controversial.
Check out the position of the sun on 2 August at 20:08 in my garden
Allard Kalff in 1994 wrote:OH!! Schumacher in the wall! Right in front of us, Michael Schumacher is in the wall! He's hit the pitwall, he c... Ah, it's Jos Verstappen.
-
Kobacrashi
- Posts: 83
- Joined: 03 Nov 2009, 13:12
- Location: England
Re: Improving the Show
Simply put the championship should be decided by least time taken after adding all race times together and then the top 2 in the championship have a dales supermarket sweep off to with the time allotted decided by the championship times difference.
Then with the ingredients they have procured they have a ready steady cook, cook off. Then the crowd decides which dish they would rather eat and hey presto we have our formula 1 world champion.
Then with the ingredients they have procured they have a ready steady cook, cook off. Then the crowd decides which dish they would rather eat and hey presto we have our formula 1 world champion.
Kobayashi is back! Need I say more!
Re: Improving the Show
Kobacrashi wrote:Simply put the championship should be decided by least time taken after adding all race times together and then the top 2 in the championship have a dales supermarket sweep off to with the time allotted decided by the championship times difference.
Then with the ingredients they have procured they have a ready steady cook, cook off. Then the crowd decides which dish they would rather eat and hey presto we have our formula 1 world champion.
Shh, don't give Bernie any more ideas!
Eurosport broadcast for the 1990 Mexican GP prequalifying:
"The Life, it looked very lifeless yet again... in fact Bruno did one, slow lap"
"The Life, it looked very lifeless yet again... in fact Bruno did one, slow lap"
-
watka
- Site Donor
- Posts: 4097
- Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 19:04
- Location: Chessington, the former home of Brabham
- Contact:
Re: Improving the Show
Nuppiz wrote:Kobacrashi wrote:Simply put the championship should be decided by least time taken after adding all race times together and then the top 2 in the championship have a dales supermarket sweep off to with the time allotted decided by the championship times difference.
Then with the ingredients they have procured they have a ready steady cook, cook off. Then the crowd decides which dish they would rather eat and hey presto we have our formula 1 world champion.
Shh, don't give Bernie any more ideas!
GREEN PEPPERS!
Watka - you know, the swimming horses guy
-
jackanderton
- Posts: 706
- Joined: 29 May 2009, 12:40
Suggestion- Back to only the top 6 earning points
I have thought about it for a while, I used to be in favour of awarding points to the top 10, then all of a sudden it became acceptable to score a points finish, and the ambitions of the midfield reduced, and there were fewer mid-position scraps, fewer racing incidents, less overtaking, fewer retirements.
Perhaps we should get back to the top 6 only earning points, incentivising the midfield runners to take more risks, and meaning podium contenders would also need to be more aggressive if they did an Aussie Grit and ended up having a bad start or a dodgy pitstop.
Some of the new rules should shake the grid up a lot, but perhaps they should have gone further, and no longer should mediocrity be rewarded.
Your thoughts on the matter, please!
Perhaps we should get back to the top 6 only earning points, incentivising the midfield runners to take more risks, and meaning podium contenders would also need to be more aggressive if they did an Aussie Grit and ended up having a bad start or a dodgy pitstop.
Some of the new rules should shake the grid up a lot, but perhaps they should have gone further, and no longer should mediocrity be rewarded.
Your thoughts on the matter, please!
Re: Suggestion- Back to only the top 6 earning points
Yes, basically. Since it began Ive felt awarding points down to 10th is the equivalent of every little kid at Sports Day getting a medal so they dont feel bad. IIRC it was the beginning of what I choose to describe as "when-F1-started-being-stupid-and-less-like-F1"
Just For One Day...
Re: Improving the Show
Just worked out that Forti's best finish was 7th, Pacific's was 8th, and Simtek's was 9th. How much would our perception of them be different if they were points-scorers?
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
MCard LOLAdinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
Re: Improving the Show
In fairness, back in those days, people in the midfield could always count on one or two, if not more, front runners to retire from the race allowing some lucky ones to sneak a point or two. Since the inception of the "points to 10th" rule and a bit before it actually, the ultra reliability era did not allow midfield teams to manage some points scoring positions (or a position until 6th) from the previous days, never mind the back of the grid ones. For teams like Sauber, Force India, Williams, Toro Rosso or last year McLarens, managing a point would rarely happen and you would end up with very few teams with points on the Championship table. It sure devalued the achievement, but I reckon that it is just as hard for those down the grid to reach 10th as it was when midfield teams battled for 6th.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
-
GwilymJJames
- Posts: 936
- Joined: 23 Apr 2010, 20:29
- Location: Milton Keynes
Re: Improving the Show
Kobacrashi wrote:Simply put the championship should be decided by least time taken after adding all race times together and then the top 2 in the championship have a dales supermarket sweep off to with the time allotted decided by the championship times difference.
Then with the ingredients they have procured they have a ready steady cook, cook off. Then the crowd decides which dish they would rather eat and hey presto we have our formula 1 world champion.
However, in order to go to the podium to collect the trophy, they have to get past Hunter, Saracen, and Wolf!
*The Boys Are Back In Town plays*
WARNING: Vettel fan.
Shut up Eccles!
Shut up Eccles!
-
GwilymJJames
- Posts: 936
- Joined: 23 Apr 2010, 20:29
- Location: Milton Keynes
Re: Improving the Show
Improve the show by replacing someone dull, like Chilton, with a Gladiator. The Gladiator can go around being rude in press conferences, grabbing and ripping banners from the audience and hitting Bernie with a pugil stick.
Show improved!
Show improved!
WARNING: Vettel fan.
Shut up Eccles!
Shut up Eccles!
Re: Improving the Show
DanielPT wrote:CoopsII wrote:Race wins to be decided by a reality-show-style phone-in by the audience. Drivers will have the opportunity to explain (with some sad music playing in the background) how much each win will mean to them, how they've been on a journey, how they are what this sports all about and how poorly some relative is. After the title has been decided they then have to record a song competing for the Christmas number one spot.
Please dont phone or text before the lines have opened as your vote won't count and you may still be charged.
This gives me the idea that, starting at 600 bhp, an extra amount of horsepower per lap should be made available to each driver depending on the percentage of support gathered by these phone calls in the last lap.
The sad part is, Formula E is doing something close to this.....
Professional Historian/Semi-Retired Drag Racer/Whiskey Enthusiast
"When I was still racing, I never once thought 'Oh, I can't damage the car here'." - Jolyn Palmer
Me either Jolyn, maybe that's why we're both out, eh?
"When I was still racing, I never once thought 'Oh, I can't damage the car here'." - Jolyn Palmer
Me either Jolyn, maybe that's why we're both out, eh?
-
watka
- Site Donor
- Posts: 4097
- Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 19:04
- Location: Chessington, the former home of Brabham
- Contact:
Re: Improving the Show
DanielPT wrote:In fairness, back in those days, people in the midfield could always count on one or two, if not more, front runners to retire from the race allowing some lucky ones to sneak a point or two. Since the inception of the "points to 10th" rule and a bit before it actually, the ultra reliability era did not allow midfield teams to manage some points scoring positions (or a position until 6th) from the previous days, never mind the back of the grid ones. For teams like Sauber, Force India, Williams, Toro Rosso or last year McLarens, managing a point would rarely happen and you would end up with very few teams with points on the Championship table. It sure devalued the achievement, but I reckon that it is just as hard for those down the grid to reach 10th as it was when midfield teams battled for 6th.
Has anyone computed an alternative championship with the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 rules?
Watka - you know, the swimming horses guy
Re: Improving the Show
watka wrote:Has anyone computed an alternative championship with the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 rules?
I believe they did. It is in the PMMF, look for the black stig memorial subforum and you will probably find it there.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
Re: Improving the Show
Ferrari plan FIA talks amid F1 show concerns
Here we go again... Can't be sure if all this show talk is genuine, a side route to improve Ferrari fortunes, a way to deflect attention from the disappointing start they had or a mix of all the previous ones. Anyway, brace yourselves, the 'let's improve F1' winter is coming.
Here we go again... Can't be sure if all this show talk is genuine, a side route to improve Ferrari fortunes, a way to deflect attention from the disappointing start they had or a mix of all the previous ones. Anyway, brace yourselves, the 'let's improve F1' winter is coming.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.