In short, you would ask the teams to renounce most of the things they signed up for? Possible, but that makes a mockery of the successive agreements they have reached with the FIA, Bernie, Liberty, etc ...
Nice to hear it from someone who remember how it was in the past. F1 and Ferrari fans have been very spoiled in recent years.
Most of the spectators who stopped following F1, didn't contribute to it financially. Bernie and then Liberty stated to ring-fence the F1 followers, and stopped offereing the show for free. Now that they have to pay for it, we can see the real audience of F1 fans.
Not sure what "back in the days" means, but even in the fifties, sixties and seventies we had dominant teams that won multiple championships in a row: Ferrari, Merc, Lotus, Tyrrell As the rules have tightened (as you point out) there is less room for experiments and changes hence a winning team keeps winning longer.
I find these "F1 is dead" threads so incredibly boring. They show up every year and it is the same people writing the same stupid stuff every time. I wish they'd find another hobby or sport and just leave.
Exactly - being a Ferrari fan in the early 70's meant you were a fan of the Old Man, sports cars the history and the sound of a flat 12.... that is what captured my imagination....I remember my dad saying that Ferrari is pretty much washed up, the old man was very old, and people doubted that they would even continue in racing at all. then 1974 came along out of the blue... and then 75 - 79 was a huge renaissance... but even then they were not dominant but just all ways there. Enzo had a late in life resurgence ( especially after his wife died - he could be open about Piero and Lina ) ....and by then he was an actual millionaire..
I think it was Holland, Austria and maybe Germany... I'll have to go back and look it was the mid summer - partly due to the Communist metal workers strikes hitting Italy.. but I think that was more of an excuse than reality. Enzo was ill with Kidney issues ( precursor to what killed him... ) and was not as in control of the team as he had been.. .he also gave up being the President of the Road Car division at that time... so he was "letting go" some of the administrative stuff. ( some don't realize the agreement between Fiat and Ferrari in 69 was that Fiat leased the factory and equipment for an annual stipend... and then Ferrari used that for his racing + a subsidy for the racing team... in the mid 70's they came to a further understanding where Enzo no longer owned the factory - only the racing team .. that is when they moved across the street... and Enzo got more money from FIAT - in exchange for FIAT to show up on the side of the car in 77.) there were lots going on. But this did firm up the Future of Ferrari Reparto Corse... as it was known back then. SEFAC changed to Ferrari SpA.... and in 79 is when they gave Piero 10% in Ferrari's will.
I think you are right. the rules are so restrictive that once a team has a superior product the development of that continues to give you the advantage. there is not much more you can do to overcome a poor engine PU design.... or aero etc. I've always been for vastly more open rules -and I really in the end don't care if there are only 3 teams competing but they are the absolute best there are .. both in drivers and technology. F-1 ( as long as I have been alive ) has always been about the fastest and best cars.... technology has always been a highlight. sure Indy cars could go faster in an oval... and 917's were doing 240 Mph at mulsanne ... but F-1 cars were the hardest to drive, fastest times and highest technology and best drivers.... I think that is what it needs to be. safety I understand and I get it...I think the technology is there to make the cars safer... and way faster with more technology. Gordon Murray had an idea - do away with all the carbon suspension ... go to steel or alloy...no more carbon shardes when someone crashes... free up underbody, open up aero and engine rules... but do away with two way telemetery - let the driver sort it all out... limit communication with the pits on the radio - max 10 min per race of comm time... and make races last 2 hours give an extra 5 pts to the driver / car that goes the furthest... mandate minimum fuel etc.... there is so much more that can be done to make f-1 relevant - attract manufacturers and fans... right now its a spec formula... and for those that say there is no passing ... F-1 has never been about passing show... its been about seeing the best out there in the world ... driver and cars.
The Americans made a mockery of the British Government in 1776. I think sometimes revolution is worthwhile if the cause is noble.
I think you have it wrong... Bernie killed WEC - WRC... he sucked out all the sponsorship... and Liberty has been doing the same. If I was the FIA I'd have 4 super weekends... where you would have a round each of: WRC in the host country - close to or ending at the race track just before WEC qualifying. Host a 12 hour race on Saturday with WEC - with practice and qualifying either before or after F-1 F-2 race on Friday... just after WEC qualifying... F-1 race on Sunday with practice on both Friday and Saturday - Qualifying just before the WEC race. Sunday Am hold a 50 lap NASCAR race .... and then allow F-1 drivers to compete in other series... and winners from each discipline to enter the F-1 finale on Sunday. practice on Thursday & Friday Team principal race in identical radicals on Saturday . Host Tracks would be : Australia Silverstone Mexico or COTA Monza
Basically Ferrari were cheating a bit... or to be totally correct they found a loop hole and now that loop hole has been closed. they were pumping in more fuel than was allowed... = more power. I forget the exact technology but the rate of flow as the same? but the actual volume was higher... that is why they were so much faster than MB last year. I have no doubt that Schumacher, Todt, Brawn and Byrne were on the raged edge of the rules as well... as Mark Donahue said - the unfair advantage... that is what they were going for.
No team won more than two in a row till the late 70s (Ferrari, and even then, they only won the Constructors Championship). I don't know if this can be fixed, but it's not true that F1 always has been a cyclic sport. Or at least not a CYCLIC sport like today.
FIA mandated 2 fuel flow measurement devices, the first one (used since 2015) sampled fuel flow every 2 milliseconds. The second one sampled 50K times per second, but at random points in time. At all times both fuel flow measurements must be the same. This is allowed only if they put in the second fuel flow measurement device. Which was mandated at Austin last year--exactly when the Ferrari engine lost so much power.
From 1970 to 1980... the dominant teams were Lotus, Tyrrell, Ferrari, McLaren. those are the teams that won multiple championships: Drivers champion ships; Louts - 70 ,72, 78 Tyrrell 71 , 73 McLaren 74 & 76 Ferrari 75, 77, 79 Constructors Champions: Lotus 70, 72,73, 78 Tyrrell 71 McLaren, 74 Ferrari, 75, 76, 77, 79 just going by the record does not show the realty of how competitive it was... Lotus was usually the team to beat, while McLaren were usually mid field along with Ferrari.... the Ford DFV was the engine to have... until 75 - with Ferrari. Ferrari statistically dominated the mid 70's but during the time ... it was like there where there but not always so dominant. the Championships in 75 was pretty dominant and the one missed in 76 was very dominant...until his crash... 79 was about the most dominant especially the first part ... mostly due to Michelin tires vs. the car. by the end of the year the 312t4 was not close to competitive ... but the championship was won in Monza...
I'm not sure that I'd say 1973 "by far". In 1969 the team only scored 7 points all year and the brightest spot was a 3rd place for Amon at Zandvoort. And in 1980, they only scored 8 points and the best finishes were a trio of 5th places. And Scheckter, with no. 1 on his car as the defending champion, actually failed to qualify in Montreal! Ferrari actually managed 12 points in 1973.
in 69 the consensus was the old man was busy with Angelli at Fiat - and metal working strikes.. .and trying to compete for World Championship of makes... none of which worked out well. However they had the B3 and flat 12 on the test rigs, and lots more Fiat Money along with Shell coming in. in 1980 - it was a transition year into Turbo's for 81. but you are correct that they did not finish well, the T5 being a terrible car.... however their focus was rewarded in 81 with two wins and arguably the most powerful engine ... over Renault.... and lots of consistency, that bled into 82 - which given how horrible it was, actually Ferrari won the constructors championship.....
I think the F1 malaise in 1973 is what convinced the team to give up sports car racing. It's too bad that they've never (officially) gone back.
I like this season. - Back to back races are great; - Some real mix up on the grid with respect to teams - Some great young talent coming through and showing there skills - some great driving/ overtaking on track - technical interest (racing point and why is Ferrari doing so crap etc) - and like it or not, I don’t care, but Hamilton making history - the combination of back to back racing, holding the regs and a strange year just seems to be putting the pressure on, so even more interest.
