Hey guys, So I was asked to participate in an F1 client survey by FOM. long story, but this involved a teams call with a member of the Paddock Club / FOM team. one of the questions she asked me was my thoughts on F1 action, and does it meet my expectations. So I thought I'd poise that question here: When you watch F1 either in person or on TV what do you expect to see? how would you rate it from 1 - 5 with 5 exceeding expectations and 1 far below expectations? It would be interesting to see what people actually expect: Passing all the time or one solid dominant leader? what are your F-1 Expectations?
This is my reply to the question I posed above: 1. F-1 has always been about the best in terms of drivers and cars and technology. From the 30's with the Silver Arrows, right through today. I have been watching and going to F-1 races my entire life - 55 years. Out of those 55 years I probably remember 50 of those years, and I don't really remember F1 ever being right down to the wire all the time with lots of passing and lead swapping. It has usually been one team / driver who gets it right and dominates ... Stewart, Fittipaldi, Lauda, Prost, Senna, Schumacher... etc.... So I dont have an expectation of spectacular passing battles every race. I want to see the best possible cars, and drivers.. and I'm not sure that is what F1 is any more. 2. TV coverage is better than its ever been. 100% no comparison to any time past. 3. In person attendance at an F1 race is horrible. Boring, no way to see the track from various points of view and you are held back from the cars and drivers at all times. very sad. Paddock club is more about entertainment vs. racing and there is little access to the cars and drivers - even when spending such huge money.
My answers would be exactly the same. I have been following F1 for 62 years now (1961 Belgian GP first visit to Spa), and stopped attending GPs at the turn of the century.
The media coverage is "bigger" although not always better. There is a lot of sensationalism and Liberty has introduced some tacky things.
Too much focus on 'show' but we live in short attention span-media overload with new fans who lose interest in 3 laps lol.
I want to be wowed. Incredible technology isn't something I can see trackside. I don't want to see lethargic cars. I don't want to listen to boring sounding engines.
I think the TV coverage of the races is good, with more cameras, inboard footage, running commentary from experts (who you agree with, or not), charts, timings, etc ... If I judge from my own experience, from the comfort of my armchair at home, I can follow a race better than from a grandstand at the circuit, and with far less hassle. Nothing like that existed 20 or 25 years ago. In the opposite, I find the quality of the press and media has been declining. I know they are under pressure to make headlines, but the sensationalism is becoming too much: lots of fake news, made-up stories, spins, influencers click-baits, etc ... It's nauseating.
Downright cringeworthy things that cheapen the sport and embarrass long-term fans like ourselves, if you ask me.
Under the budget cap era, I expect to see closer battles in the championships. Domination should be rare, not the norm. Passing for the lead doesn't need to always happen. On track passing doesn't need to always happen. A mix of on track battles and strategies are exciting. If the cars are too big, or the tracks aren't suitable (Monaco) then we see no action at all. I don't want to see so much tire saving anymore. Bridgestone and Michelin made tires that could be pushed lap after lap without destroying itself or overheating, so surely Pirelli can do it too. TV coverage of the race is good. Social media and Youtube are enormous parts of the world today, and FOM is among the absolute worst when it comes to copyright strangleholds. People can't even make review clips of the race because FOM won't even allow a few seconds of footage from the race. Absolutely 100% get rid of Sprint races!!!! DRS has worked, but for the most part, gimmicks suck and kill the sport. Look at Nascar, nobody gives a hoot anymore because they filled it with garbage.
90s to mid 2000s. V8's though the sound wasn't *as* impressive, it was still very good and also the racing was fantastic IMO. Yes aero regulations should've been a bit different but we've had some great seasons. 2006 to 2010, all straight up bangers. Maybe not with the end result for Ferrari but the seasons where exciting and racing was close. 2012, another good one. 2021 was the first (and to my eyes, only) good season for the hybrid cars and still the racing was artificial (excessive DRS) and I don't find these cars aurally exciting. Go back to the 80s and those turbo V6's did sound good (of course, nowhere near as good as the double digit NA V engines but you get my point). Liberty can add as many flashing lights and distractions as they want on it and drive the price tag up higher and higher, but at some point they'll get found out. The biggest worry for me of all though remains the sheer size and weight of these things. I can ignore the sound (to a certain point). But for 2023, they need to look no further than this: Image Unavailable, Please Login The cars would look much more alive going round the track. They'll be lighter, better to race, look faster.
I have no way of knowing the scope of the questions but if asked, I would say that F1, FIA, et al have made two enormous mistakes. The budget cap/testing restrictions have been a failure in achieving their alleged purpose: removing the money advantage between enormously rich teams and slightly less enormously rich teams. The other is the ridiculous tire regulations. Ideally there should be competition between tire suppliers, but I guess that’ll never happen. At least, the current requirement to use different compounds during a race, etc., should be abandoned. Let them race on one compound. I don’t care to see a race car stationary, its fate dependent on a bunch of tire slingers and pit wall geniuses. This is why I enjoy the sprint races: no pit stops.
I would die to see a battle between 3 or 4 strong teams for the win. As it is now, and has been for far too many years, its been a competition where a F1 car is in the track with F2 cars.
Bring back 90 Kg V10s Bring back 600 Kg cars Get rid of DRS Problem solved Oh:: bring back the grid girls.
And bring back refueling. 2.4 second pit stops are not enough time to to allow any serious strategies. Plus you don't know which teams start on light fuels (two or three pit stops) or heavy fuel (one or two pit stops)? Those unknowns, were strategies. IMHO
I'm a broken record but for me the best year was 1990. so many teams, so many manufacturers in the sport, pre qualifying, the cars sounded amazing, lots of variety V-12, 10, 8 ... and lots of driver diversity -probably the best driver field ever.. and the cars just looked mean and powerful.
I agree. More engine freedom, less aero, less electronics, lighter cars, choice of tyre supplier, customer cars, private teams, more variety, up to 36 cars entered before pre-qualifications. What was there not to like ?
exactly. I know I'm biased - as that was a formative time in my life - I was 21 living in Switzerland, and able to go to all the European races - with a Silver FIA pass, so life was great.... but so was the racing. I just remember how amazing it was standing next to the track and seeing an F-1 car go by just 2-3 ft away. the smell was even more powerful - they used all these exotic fuels back then. In the paddock/pits when they were pumping fuel into churns, everything was locked down - only the fuelers were allowed to be moving. I still have a good yeart tire from Jerez that I got from Ligier ...
I agree that the early 1990's were a strong time for F1. Small nimble cars with great sounding engines and a large field needing pre-qualifying. That said... Allow me to play devils advocate here for a moment. In the 1990's one team would normally be 1-2 seconds clear of the field. The difference from first to last could be near 10 seconds PER LAP eventually necessitating the 107% rule. Yes there were a small number of superstar drivers but there were a lot of genuinely terrible drivers and the driving standard as a whole was pretty poor. I remember times when just about every time an overtake was attempted it resulted in a clumsy contact of some kind. We all like to remember times gone by as the golden era but there is a lot to be grateful for in the present. Fields separated by just over a second. Right now there are probably more generational talents in the field than there has ever been. Incredible race craft and overtaking at a very high level. The problem is that the raising of professionalism in the sport and the cubic increases in expenditure have made it harder and harder to eek out gains. Gone are the days when a brilliant driver could make up for deficiencies in the machine. We are at the stage now where EVERY car is capable of setting fastest lap with just a fresher set of tires on the last tour. All it takes is one team to figure out a little advantage and everyone else is left looking (relatively) ordinary.
I would say that in 1990 - the year I referenced, there were 3 - 4 teams that could win. Mclaren, Ferrari, Williams, Bennetton. with March, BMS dallara, and occasionaly Tyrell up there. Piquet, Senna, Mansell, Prost, Berger, Arnoux, Albreato, Patrese, Alesi, Brundell, Blundell, Hill, Dalmas, etc... far out shines todays drivers. Until Schumacher and Hakkinenn I don't remember that many passes that ended up in people touching each other ... it was still far too dangerous to do that. not until the late 90's did you see that. However Yes, Senna was one who had more accidents than a lot of the others... The only reason any car from todays grid can set a fast lap, is the rules dictate a very narrow window of design, so you end up with almost the same car its almost a spec formula. to me that is not F-1. F-1 frequently had a dominating team and driver ... that showcased the best in the world - f1 still does that, but the dominance is not set since the rules don't allow you to make changes to catch up.
The FIA rules impose too many parameters, IMO, and basically dictate the design of the cars. The variety was the attraction of F1 in years gone by. Now everything is down to exploiting ONLY one solution. The designers just have to join the dots on the canvas the FIA prepares them. There was a time, when 4cyl, V6, V8, V10, V12, turbo, atmo, longitudinal, transversal engines or gearboxes used to cohabit, even flat4, flat 8 and flat12 !!!. Why some technologies are not allowed like active suspension, mass damper, or CVT ? Between the technical rules, the single tyre supplier, the testing restriction, and now the budget cap, what is left to actually compete? I cannot understand why there are so many restrictions in F1.
What would be a tremendous help to make F1 exciting (again): - during testing, quali and race, no more contact between pit and driver -no more "adding or reducing" power or other mechanical or digital help from the pit -get rid of DRS -total freedom in tyre choice or quantity during racing -allow more than one brand of tyres -get rid of the (extra) aerodynamics. 2 spoilers maximum: 1 front, 1 back. -get rid of Liberty -get rid of FIA
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/why-f1s-quest-for-more-isnt-always-better/10480263/ Why F1’s quest for more isn't always better By: GP Racing Jun 9, 2023, 1:20 PM As Formula 1 expands, so does its coverage, but MARK GALLAGHER reckons that more isn’t always better Formula 1’s a serious business. If it’s laughs you’re looking for I can recommend avoiding official press conferences, media briefings and interviews in the pen, where serious interviewers come up with serious questions to ask drivers who would rather be having a massage. While the Irish comedian Conor Moore can raise a laugh with his clever impersonations of drivers and team principals, F1 isn’t a popular topic with mainstream comedians. David Mitchell, star of TV comedies including The Mitchell & Webb Look, Upstart Crow and Would I Lie to You, positively hates it. So incensed was he by the boredom caused by watching the 2008 Canadian Grand Prix that he wrote a column about it in The Guardian. “Televised Formula 1 is the most eloquent answer to the question, ‘What sport could possibly be more of a turn-off than horse racing?’” he wrote, describing the pinnacle of world motorsport as ‘televised traffic’. “The only F1 season I remember following was the one where Nigel Mansell became world champion purely as a result of having a better car than anyone else,” he bemoaned, comparing it to, “Monty Panesar [having] such an amazing cricket bat that, every time he tried to hit the ball, it went for six despite his limitations as a batsman.” My response to that was the only time I’ve ever written to The Guardian. Fast forward to April this year and F1 finally warranted another outing on national media. This time on BBC Radio 4’s satirical news programme The Now Show presented by comedians Steve Punt and Hugh Dennis. Their proposition is that, as sport becomes increasingly hijacked to feed media companies’ demands to provide 24/7 entertainment to customers, the main event becomes diluted. “Twenty years ago coverage started 20 minutes before the race with a quick summary of qualifying and a look at the grid,” said Dennis. Image Unavailable, Please Login Brundle has gained TV star status through his popular grid walk segment Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images “Now it’s ‘Join us for race weekend! It all kicks off Wednesday with a full preview and interviews, then don’t miss practice for pre-practice at 5pm, then on Thursday pre-practice for qualifying practice followed by the practice session for first pre-qualifying. Friday it’s final qualifying pre-practice followed by first qualifying. Saturday, second qualifying, and then on Sunday join us for the grid walk where a baffled Martin Brundle is ordered by the director to talk to various influencers and rappers he’s never heard of and who have no idea why they’re there.’” I found myself nodding. The programme aired one week after Stefano Domenicali discussed revolutionising the race weekend format by reducing practice, moving qualifying, introducing more sprint races, and adapting Formula 1 to continue to attract more fans. The quest is for more viewers and more spectators on more days across more races in more countries. The drive for growth is understandable – it’s Stefano Domenicali’s job after all Constant change appears to have become an aim in itself, as though stability must be avoided. F1’s incessant tinkering with its rules, to the point where even the governing body seems to struggle to follow them, is already an issue. Meanwhile the Football Association has not felt the need to put more players on the pitch, adopt quarters instead of halves or introduce variable goalpost sizes. It feels odd that an already complex sport wants to add further layers to its events. The quest is for ‘more’, of course. More viewers and more spectators on more days across more races in more countries. The drive for growth is understandable – it’s Stefano’s job after all. However, he needs to ensure this doesn’t turn into a bubble because we all know what happens to them. And that’s not funny at all.
