DS Forums

 
 

F1 Coverage - The Verdict: 2016 Season


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 25-04-2016, 21:51
DanManF1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 1,135
It's really disappointing that ITV4 have given up showing the qualifying session for the European rounds this season, although it's perfectly understandable given the low viewing figures. I wonder if they won't even bother showing the final London race on the main ITV channel either for this year? Is it really worth it?
DanManF1 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 25-04-2016, 21:58
solarflare
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15,016
I've still been watching, though largely because FanBoost hasn't really had a huge effect - I still think it's a ridiculous and unsporting gimmick that I'm genuinely surprised is allowed in an FIA championship. I originally intended to boycott the series because of FanBoost.

The racing has been okay, if not spectacularly quick - they've made the best of what they have. But I agree and have tired of the "concrete tunnel" tracks too, which by the time they're constructed could be anywhere in the world and you wouldn't really notice. It looked like the triple-height advertising also robbed many spectators of a good vantage point, especially as there was only one stand that I could see, which presumably negates one of the series' apparent goals of racing in cities to bring the racing closer to people.
Fanboost in itself is a bad idea, but there's something doubly stupid about a system where one of the fanboosts is given to a driver who's already eliminated. But at least their new voting system means there's only one fanboost per driver and not two.

Joe Saward did a nice piece on the Formula E, being Paris-based. From his article it did seem as if spectating wasn't great at the track.
solarflare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2016, 22:11
mrprosser
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 699

Will the rule changes for next year improve things?

I like some of the ideas, however I feel the FIA has missed a trick. All the cars look so similar these days, instead of writing the rules to say the car is to be x cm wide, y cm high etc. I think the FIA should have defined a box and said the car must fit inside it. If the teams were allowed that leeway we could see some truly unique car designs. Let the teams decide on whether to use the bigger wheels or not, or shorter-wider rear wings or front wings etc.

I think the hybrid engines are fine, especially as it allows you to hear tyre squeal which in the past has been overpowered by the engine noise. It also keeps the interest of the manufacturers in the sport who are desperate to develop more efficient engines that can have the technology exported to the cars they make their profits from.
mrprosser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2016, 22:55
Hacker Harrier
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 807
It's really disappointing that ITV4 have given up showing the qualifying session for the European rounds this season, although it's perfectly understandable given the low viewing figures. I wonder if they won't even bother showing the final London race on the main ITV channel either for this year? Is it really worth it?
I'd say it was likely to be on ITV 1, unless it's an early evening race, as the Tour de France (live on ITV4) starts on the same weekend. I think the last time ITV moved the TdF onto ITV1, it was due to the Grand Depart in Yorkshire.
Hacker Harrier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 00:12
stefmeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yardley, Birmingham
Posts: 5,980
Will the rule changes for next year improve things?
I don't believe so, Adding more aero in the unnecessary pursuit of making the cars 5 seconds faster is the wrong direction imo.

I don't even think they need to do anything major to make the cars a couple seconds faster because the natural development along with Pirelli's new brief to produce better tyres that are a bit bigger are going to see the cars be probably over 2 seconds faster next year anyway. Then if you make some small tweaks to the fuel flow/allowance there is some additional performance to be found from the power unit. Giving them more fuel & a higher flow rate may also see them running more revs (The limit is 15,000 but they rarely run above 12,000 because of the 100kg/hour flow limit) which would also help raise the volume.

The past few years its been nothing but knee-jerk reaction & rule changes with no real thought been put into anything, Then when the knee-jerk doesn't work the 1st reaction seems to be to start suggesting gimmicks to try & cover up the flaws.



I'd scrap the big changes (But keep the planned tyre changes & up the fuel flow etc...) & put together a team of people who know what there doing & give them the resources & budget to do a proper study to come up with a set of regulations for 2020-2021 that will produce good racing without the need for gimmicks while at the same time producing F1 levels of performance.

I would suggest looking at getting rid of the complexities of the front wing (Go back to the 2009 style single element design), Bring back the splitters behind the endplates that were there until 1994 (Damon Hill recently said removing those post Imola '94 made following cars a lot harder at the time), Widening the car & bringing the floor forward with large venturi tunnels, some style of side skirts & a simple but effective diffuser in order to generate most of the cars overall grip from the floor (i.e ground effects, Like the 1st generation GP2 car) rather than the wings. I wouldn't go back to the full on sliding skirts etc... of the early 80's but making more use of the floor as various other categories do would be a step in the right direction..... But then again i'm not an expert on aero, car design etc... so maybe i'm wrong (I don't think I am though )?

Having cars that are producing insane levels of performance & breaking all the lap records is great & all but if the racing ends up been really bad as a result of the increased aero then what does it matter?
stefmeister is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 00:54
Hacker Harrier
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 807
Will the rule changes for next year improve things?
Some engineers will find a loophole in the regulations, one or 2 teams will have a performance advantage until the regs are changed etc... See 2009 double diffusers.
Hacker Harrier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 09:20
Ten_Ben
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,439
Will the rule changes for next year improve things?

I like some of the ideas, however I feel the FIA has missed a trick. All the cars look so similar these days, instead of writing the rules to say the car is to be x cm wide, y cm high etc. I think the FIA should have defined a box and said the car must fit inside it. If the teams were allowed that leeway we could see some truly unique car designs. Let the teams decide on whether to use the bigger wheels or not, or shorter-wider rear wings or front wings etc.

I think the hybrid engines are fine, especially as it allows you to hear tyre squeal which in the past has been overpowered by the engine noise. It also keeps the interest of the manufacturers in the sport who are desperate to develop more efficient engines that can have the technology exported to the cars they make their profits from.
I'd love for there to be fewer rules and greater differences in car designs but we're in a situation where years and years of rules have been built on top of other rules, restrictions added in and loopholes closed that everything becomes so tightly defined that there now seems to be little room for manoeuvre in trying anything radical. You'd think that this would see convergence in terms of performance (as Wolff says) but it's a painfully slow process and no-one knows how close teams could eventually get. I'm not sure how you could roll-back from such a tight set of regulations but one thing I'd like to see is the ludicrously complicated and expensive front wings scaled back to something much simpler and less effective. Another issue I have is having wider cars will surely make make overtaking even harder.

The other difficulty is balancing the impact of the car/aero design against engine design. Ideally you want neither to dominate but any big rules shake-up risks this happening and you generally get one team dominating for a while as they do a better job (or luck in) with the changes. The rule-makers seem to think that whenever there's a big set of rule changes, it'll cause the teams to produce more closely-matched cars but it doesn't, it might mix the field up but usually one team steals a march.

Also big rule changes also have the effect of potentially penalising top teams who are fighting for the championship as they can't/don't/won't switch resources to the next year's car as soon as other teams can, although they may have a bigger pool of people to mitigate this. I've never liked the situation we get every year, where half-way through the current season, half the teams give up on this year's car in favour of developing next year's and we get months of speculation about which drivers will be moving to which teams for next year.... hang on, we're half way through a season and now a lot of the field has switched focus to next year.....

Ideally, I'd like to see as many variables as possible, a tyre war would be one example but Bernie clearly doesn't as he sees having control over what sort of tyres are produced as a key part of managing the spectacle and delivering a show. However you look at it, that's wrong, as it simply shouldn't be necessary. Pirelli produces the tyres that are asked for, yet they get shed-loads of flack and people think their tyres are cr4p, don't last and aren't up to the job. That must affect their reputation and sales in the real world and makes you wonder why they put up with such a crazy situation.

The circuits are a problem too. Too many don't facilitate overtaking. All tracks should be on the calendar through merit, through producing exciting races over a course of several years. I'm not saying that new tracks shouldn't be allowed but surely there could be some sort of formula/mechanism to rank tracks on how good/close/exciting the racing has been over the last few years and those at the bottom of the rankings get dropped or forced to make changes to avoid processional races.
Ten_Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 10:11
FOM Fan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,329
The circuits are a problem too. Too many don't facilitate overtaking. All tracks should be on the calendar through merit, through producing exciting races over a course of several years. I'm not saying that new tracks shouldn't be allowed but surely there could be some sort of formula/mechanism to rank tracks on how good/close/exciting the racing has been over the last few years and those at the bottom of the rankings get dropped or forced to make changes to avoid processional races.
But what happens if a classic circuit simply has a bad few races or whatever? For example, everyone used to hate Hungary, saying it was a rubbish race track & you couldn't overtake on it, but more recently, there've been some pretty good races, with plenty of overtaking action. Also, under your system, if there've been a few bad races, so the track gets punted off the calendar, what happens if they want to get back on it again?

IMO it's not the circuits that's the problem, it's the cars. A successful circuit needs to attract a large variety of series, not just F1. What produces good racing for F1 may be crap for the other series & vice versa.
FOM Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 11:21
Ten_Ben
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,439
But what happens if a classic circuit simply has a bad few races or whatever? For example, everyone used to hate Hungary, saying it was a rubbish race track & you couldn't overtake on it, but more recently, there've been some pretty good races, with plenty of overtaking action. Also, under your system, if there've been a few bad races, so the track gets punted off the calendar, what happens if they want to get back on it again?

IMO it's not the circuits that's the problem, it's the cars. A successful circuit needs to attract a large variety of series, not just F1. What produces good racing for F1 may be crap for the other series & vice versa.
Clearly any ranking-formula would need to take into account what's happened historically but if a track is suddenly producing several years of anodyne racing and started slipping down the rankings, you'd need to investigate and understand why (and what could be done about it). Tracks can be built to accommodate different series of racing with varying layouts, so that's not necessarily an issue.

You can't rely on historical performances for ever but equally it's not in the long-term interests of the sport, or the fans, to lose popular, interesting, much-loved tracks just because newly-built Tilke-dromes in obscure countries are in a position to offer silly amounts of money. It's ripping the heart and soul out of the sport and affecting support in its traditional European heartland. I'm not against new tracks per se, I'm just saying that circuits should be on the calendar by merit, not cash. How you engineer that could be debated forever, sure, but you can't deny that the mix of circuits is an important element in the sport's offering and it shouldn't be left to simply who can offer Bernie the biggest borrowload of notes.
Ten_Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 12:31
FOM Fan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,329
It's ripping the heart and soul out of the sport and affecting support in its traditional European heartland.
F1 is and always has been a WORLD championship, not a European championship. Personally I think there should be an equal balance of European & non-european races on the calendar.
FOM Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 12:45
brundlebud
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 231
But what happens if a classic circuit simply has a bad few races or whatever? For example, everyone used to hate Hungary, saying it was a rubbish race track & you couldn't overtake on it, but more recently, there've been some pretty good races, with plenty of overtaking action.
Part of the reason why Hungary now has more overtaking is because they changed the layout slightly lengthening the pit straight to make Turn 1 more of a passing opportunity, and re-profiling the section before the penultimate corner.
brundlebud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 13:52
Ten_Ben
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,439
F1 is and always has been a WORLD championship, not a European championship. Personally I think there should be an equal balance of European & non-european races on the calendar.
Yes, a good mix across the globe is fine and should be the ultimate aim but the constant bickering and bullying for more cash with circuit owners in the UK, Italy, Germany and France is distasteful, damaging and unprofessional.

I wouldn't object if some circuits featured every other year but they all need to be capable of producing decent racing. Personally I'd drop Monaco but we all know that's not going to happen.

Part of the reason why Hungary now has more overtaking is because they changed the layout slightly lengthening the pit straight to make Turn 1 more of a passing opportunity, and re-profiling the section before the penultimate corner.
Which is exactly what the FIA should be encouraging.
Ten_Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 14:38
stefmeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yardley, Birmingham
Posts: 5,980
The circuits are a problem too. Too many don't facilitate overtaking. All tracks should be on the calendar through merit, through producing exciting races over a course of several years. I'm not saying that new tracks shouldn't be allowed but surely there could be some sort of formula/mechanism to rank tracks on how good/close/exciting the racing has been over the last few years and those at the bottom of the rankings get dropped or forced to make changes to avoid processional races.
The problem with picking tracks based purely on how good the racing/overtaking is would be that we could potentially lose or end up avoiding circuits that while not great from a racing POV are otherwise great circuits that are a real challenge for the drivers & a joy to watch cars racing round.

Circuits like Magny-Cours for example which was rubbish when it came to racing but a fantastic circuit from the drivers perspective & a joy to watch the cars been driven round. Circuits like Imola, Monaco & even Suzuka are similar in that the racing isn't always fantastic but there still great circuits which the drivers generally love.


I also don't like the idea of circuits making layout changes just in the name of racing because as we have seen over the past decade or so we have lost some good, challenging corners that tend to be replaced by slow, boring sections that while better for racing are simply not as good as the previous layout.
Take the Bus-Stop chicane at Spa, The original layout was a fun little challenge for the drivers while the 2004-2006 & 2007-Today versions while better for racing are nowhere near as interesting or fun a corner to drive/watch. Its the same with things like the 1st chicane at Monza, The new loop at Silverstone, The revised triangle chicane at Suzuka, The new turn 1 at Hungary, The post 2003 final section at Magny-Cours & the crappy chicane before the final corner at Barcelona etc... All changes done with improving racing/overtaking opportunities in mind (Which have worked for the most part) & all changes that have made those corners/parts of the track far less challenging, far less interesting & far more boring to watch cars going round.
stefmeister is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 15:03
Hacker Harrier
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 807
Personally I'd drop Monaco but we all know that's not going to happen.
Whilst you're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it.
It's a blue riband motorsport event. It's one of the 'triple crown'. It's F1's few remaining calling cards. It's a unique challenge that punishes mistakes. You don't need the most powerful engine to win the event. It's where commercial deals are signed. It's a delicious throwback in a calendar with too many sterile chequebook circuits. It's the one they all want to win.
Hacker Harrier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 15:20
skinj
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,190
I don't even think they need to do anything major to make the cars a couple seconds faster because the natural development along with Pirelli's new brief to produce better tyres that are a bit bigger are going to see the cars be probably over 2 seconds faster next year anyway. Then if you make some small tweaks to the fuel flow/allowance there is some additional performance to be found from the power unit. Giving them more fuel & a higher flow rate may also see them running more revs (The limit is 15,000 but they rarely run above 12,000 because of the 100kg/hour flow limit) which would also help raise the volume.
As far as changes to the cars go & as part of being relevent to road cars for the manufacturers, I've got to say that the aero has to be drastically limited. It's one significant area of F1 cars that has very little to do with road cars. Ferrari/Maclaren could argue that they use aero on theirs quite a bit, but nowhere near F1 levels.
I'd strip the aero right back and find a way to measure the turbulence created for the following cars, quantify this and then limit it.
I'd also allow technologies that are common place on road cars to be allowed back in to F1. They want to increase the speed in corners to decrease lap times so why don't we have active suspension? This has already proved, back in the early 90's that it makes cornering much easier. I'd possibly look at anti-lock brakes too but quite like the idea of cars with active suspension going into corners way to fast for the degrading tyres to cope with.
If the got rid of much of the aero package to allow proper slipstreaming we could do away with the awful false system of DRS. Far too many times we see a car amble up behind someone then just blow them away by hitting the DRS button.
skinj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 16:05
FOM Fan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,329
Yes, a good mix across the globe is fine and should be the ultimate aim but the constant bickering and bullying for more cash with circuit owners in the UK, Italy, Germany and France is distasteful, damaging and unprofessional.
Frankly, if the UK govt. gave a damn about motor racing & the motor industry as a whole in this country, it would stump up the (relatively minuscule) amount of cash needed to ensure a healthier future for the British Grand Prix. Same with France & Germany too.
FOM Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 18:34
Ten_Ben
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,439
Whilst you're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it.
It's a blue riband motorsport event. It's one of the 'triple crown'. It's F1's few remaining calling cards. It's a unique challenge that punishes mistakes. You don't need the most powerful engine to win the event. It's where commercial deals are signed. It's a delicious throwback in a calendar with too many sterile chequebook circuits. It's the one they all want to win.
Like i said, the event is not going anywhere. It's still the one that I don't particularly look forward to, pretty scenery but dull racing, especially now reliability is so high. It was a far greater spectacle when there might only have been six finishers. Not these days

Frankly, if the UK govt. gave a damn about motor racing & the motor industry as a whole in this country, it would stump up the (relatively minuscule) amount of cash needed to ensure a healthier future for the British Grand Prix. Same with France & Germany too.
Fine in theory but in reality taxpayers' cash would simply end up finding its way into the pockets of Ecclestone and CVC. Then he'd sit back and demand even more for subsequent years. Not something I could condone.
Ten_Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 19:41
popeye13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England, E.Midlands & London
Posts: 7,692
Whilst you're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it.
It's a blue riband motorsport event. It's one of the 'triple crown'. It's F1's few remaining calling cards. It's a unique challenge that punishes mistakes. You don't need the most powerful engine to win the event. It's where commercial deals are signed. It's a delicious throwback in a calendar with too many sterile chequebook circuits. It's the one they all want to win.
But in terms of racing, there is little to no over taking and its nothing more than a glorified exhibition as opposed to an actual competitive race!
That showed when BBC stopped picking it for their live races, because it adds nothing much to the season!
popeye13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 19:44
mjr
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,396
Monaco is quite good at punishing track-limit infringements though
mjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 20:18
Hacker Harrier
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 807
How much of the dull racing is down to the Télé Monte-Carlo (TMC) World feed? When there is overtaking, it can be memorable. http://www.crash.net/f1/feature/2189...at-monaco.html

The 'glorified exhibition' races are held on the 13th, 14th and 15th of May. Yep, the ACM Monaco GP Historique 2016.
http://acm.mc/en/grand-prix-de-monaco-historique/
Hacker Harrier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 21:09
solarflare
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15,016
F1 is and always has been a WORLD championship, not a European championship. Personally I think there should be an equal balance of European & non-european races on the calendar.
I don't disagree, but if that's the case, have them on at sensible local times for that country, and don't have as many races outside of Europe yet still primarily catered in terms of start time for the European audience.

It's the element of the sport trying to have its cake and eat it that annoys folk.
solarflare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2016, 01:33
stefmeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yardley, Birmingham
Posts: 5,980
But in terms of racing, there is little to no over taking and its nothing more than a glorified exhibition as opposed to an actual competitive race!
Monaco is about the challenge & the skill of the drivers to race within millimeters of the barriers for upto 2 hours knowing that a mistake can end your race.

Its racing as it used to be before everyone became so obsessed with overtaking & the overall show. Nobody looks back at the 50's, 60s, 70s or even the 80s & goes on about overtaking, They look at those era's & talk about the drivers & the challenge of driving on narrow circuits with no runoff where mistakes were punished.

You watch an old F1 race from the nordschleife
for example & you won't see much (If any) overtaking, But you will get to see the drivers of the day been challenged around the most demanding & challenging circuit in the world & that in itself creates 'the show' & for me at least its the same with Monaco today.


Don't get me wrong I like to see some good close racing & overtaking & do enjoy races a bit more when we see more of that.... But I also appreciate the races like Monaco where it is more about the challenge. It does also mean that any overtaking we do see at Monaco is far more memorable & worthy of note than elsewhere.
stefmeister is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2016, 14:39
FOM Fan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,329
I don't disagree, but if that's the case, have them on at sensible local times for that country, and don't have as many races outside of Europe yet still primarily catered in terms of start time for the European audience.

It's the element of the sport trying to have its cake and eat it that annoys folk.
Well I agree with your first bit, but re. the last bit, I think F1 should appeal to the widest audience possible, and if more universal start times help, then that's good IMO.
FOM Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2016, 16:58
JackFoley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 712
Probably stefmeister knows more about it, but in the end are there providers taking the new (and much better) data feed from FOM instead of Timing Page 4?
JackFoley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2016, 17:16
mlt11
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,160
I suspect this is not going to go down too well:

“Sky today announced its first ever global advertising partnership ………

The partnership with DHL will see the activation of its “The Power of Global Trade” advertising campaign ………..

Sponsorship will be a major feature of the campaign across Europe and there will be a comprehensive package of activity on Sky Sports and Sky News including a major DHL TV campaign to run across Premier League, Bundesliga, Rugby, Formula 1 and Moto GP in different territories ………..

As part of Formula 1 coverage on Sky, DHL will present the “Fastest Pit Stop Award” and the “Fastest Lap Award” after the race

https://corporate.sky.com/media-cent...ng-partnership

This sort of thing is common on American TV but I don’t ever recall anything quite like it before in the UK.

What are the OFCOM rules in this area?

Might they get around any rules by actually making a presentation to the team / driver – ie Brundle or someone physically handing them an award? (Rather than it just being “announced” on TV).
mlt11 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:07.