Tracks you wish be used in Formula One?

[Balocco]

there is no way to do it think of the traffic if they closed off times square

Times Square has been closed to traffic for a little over a year, but all the other traffic they'd have to divert is why they shoot down the idea every year.

 

[Lizard]

Times Square has been closed to traffic for a little over a year, but all the other traffic they'd have to divert is why they shoot down the idea every year.

really? im so behind the times due to that i must ask the question has gt5 been released

also id love a race around the m25

 

[A2K78]

Every year they discuss the possibility of a New York street circuit, every year they decide that there's no way to actually do it, every year I want it to happen even more.

Personally speaking, I'm against the whole idea of having street events of this magnitude because in the end taxpayers would be the ones fitting the bill to host the event rather than the F1.

 

[Ardius]

Why is it any different for the Olympics? - an event which arguably does far more damage than any F1 event (or any other motorsport).
Taxpayers have to pay for the stupidly large stadia to be built for this one event, and then they fall into dis-use!

At least for a motor race, most of the facilities that are needed can be temporary, and because its usually an annual event, the local businesses gain longer-term benefits than for a one-of-a-kind athletics event.
If the city is well organised, the track doesn't even have to mean the roads are permanently closed for the weekend - Monaco opens the barriers during the weekend.

The only downside is the fees Bernie asks for.

Obviously if you think the Olympics and similar events are a waste of money, then just ignore this post . But I think put into perspective, an annual motor-race is hardly as terrible some think.

 

[SaberFire]

Naturally, I'd rather have something like the English Grand Prix (not the Great Britain one, that would eliminate Silverstone ) on the streets of London than have those stupid 2012 Olympics. Even worse, I live in London

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Every year they discuss the possibility of a New York street circuit, every year they decide that there's no way to actually do it, every year I want it to happen even more.

I reckon you could get some pretty good stuff going in Washington, D.C.

 

[F1 fan]

In my opinion, for Japanese Formula 1 sake, I would pick Twin Ring Motegi.

I'm confused... Are you proposing a second Japanese event on the calendar, or are you actually suggesting that they replace Suzuka? And what layout of motegi are you talking about? Please don't say oval...

Edit:

Adelaide, Zandvoort, old hockenheim.

I would like to see a new york circuit, but won't hold my breath. Let's face it, even if it does happen, any corners with the potential for overtaking will be neutered by herman tilke. Someone sack him...

 

[A2K78]

Why is it any different for the Olympics? - an event which arguably does far more damage than any F1 event (or any other motorsport).

Ardius, I'm oppose to the idea of taxpayers subsidizing sporting event large or small, that including the olympics hence why I was glad Chicago for example lost the olympics.

Now don't get me wrong me wrong but I love to watch the olympics, but overall I personally believe it should be privately handled and funded.

Anyhow to get back on topic, one other place I would like to see a F1(even MotoGP) even held....Hawaii, that assuming a proper facility can be built or converted. And for the record there have been some talk about contructing a privately owned cirucit.

 

[SaberFire]

How about Macau?

Come on, it'd be great to see the big boys have their fun

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Let's face it, even if it does happen, any corners with the potential for overtaking will be neutered by herman tilke.

Oh, the ignorance.

You know, when the police are breaking up a drug ring, they don't arrest the dealers straight away. They go after the suppliers instead. If they arrest the dealers, the suppliers will just find someone else to supply. But if they take out the supply, the dealers will have nothing to sell.

I use this analogy because Hermann Tilke is not a supplier - he's a dealer. There are only two firms in the world that specialise in designing racing circuits that can be held up to FIA Grade-1 regulations: Tilke GmbH and Apex Circuit Design. Having seen some of Apex's circuit proposals, they use the same ethos as Tilke does with long straights and heavy braking zones. In fact, you can trace that idea back to the earliest of circuit designs; the Mulsanne at La Sarthe stands out, while the Nurburgring has no less then four examples of it. Dropping Tilke in favous of someone else will do nothing.

The problem lies in the FIA regulations. They dictate every facet of circuit design. They are rules that Tilke has to adhere to because if he doesn't, the circuit wil not be approved for use and he will have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars of someone else's money. So relax the circuit design regulations first. Then you'll start seeing better circuits.

 

[tankuroded]

I'm confused... Are you proposing a second Japanese event on the calendar, or are you actually suggesting that they replace Suzuka? And what layout of motegi are you talking about? Please don't say oval...

OK, I will pick it as secondary event, at full course.

 

[Ian Poole]

How about Macau?

Now that's a shout, have Monaco and Macau in the same championship

 

[F1 fan]

Oh, the ignorance.

You know, when the police are breaking up a drug ring, they don't arrest the dealers straight away. They go after the suppliers instead. If they arrest the dealers, the suppliers will just find someone else to supply. But if they take out the supply, the dealers will have nothing to sell.

I use this analogy because Hermann Tilke is not a supplier - he's a dealer. There are only two firms in the world that specialise in designing racing circuits that can be held up to FIA Grade-1 regulations: Tilke GmbH and Apex Circuit Design. Having seen some of Apex's circuit proposals, they use the same ethos as Tilke does with long straights and heavy braking zones. In fact, you can trace that idea back to the earliest of circuit designs; the Mulsanne at La Sarthe stands out, while the Nurburgring has no less then four examples of it. Dropping Tilke in favous of someone else will do nothing.

The problem lies in the FIA regulations. They dictate every facet of circuit design. They are rules that Tilke has to adhere to because if he doesn't, the circuit wil not be approved for use and he will have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars of someone else's money. So relax the circuit design regulations first. Then you'll start seeing better circuits.

Fair enough. The fia do need to change the regulations. Along with many other things... Too much focus on aerodynamics etc.

OK, I will pick it as secondary event, at full course.

Fair enough, it's not a circuit I would pick, but is still a pretty good one.

I'd also like to see the Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez back in F1. Would like to see if anyone could recreate that move on Gerhard Berger. I was never the biggest fan of Mansell, but after that, he was king. Doubt today's cars could do it though. Might get the people in charge to have a bit of a rethink.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Oh, the ignorance.

Ok, maybe I am ignorant also, but I find the Portimão track to be simply awesome, it wasn't designed by Tilke and it is FIA approved (at least for F1 testing). Passing opportunities? One, maybe two. More than enough for me.

Because in the end the overtaking is more dependant on the rules concerning the cars (aero and tyres mainly) than in the rules concerning the tracks.

Police may not go after the dealer, but Tilke is a lousy dealer nevertheless.

Incidentally I found this. Very interesting, not only the piece itself, but most of all the many comments:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/11/15/2011-indian-f1-track-design/


Concluding:

1 - I want a F1 where overtaking is possible in classic tracks with "flowing" designs like Zandvoort, Watkins Glen, Donington, Silverstone, and so on. Tracks for braver drivers and better build chassis, not for better engines and better brakes.

2 - I want a F1 where these tracks aren't condemned and where uninspired guys like Tilke, instead of designing tracks as interesting as Avus or Nardo, go away to design suburban buildings

 

[Ardius]

Its plain logic that if all tracks are designed by the same person, you're going to get some deline in quality, no matter the genius.
Let other people design the tracks, and there should be some serious research into what corners are exciting and what are not.

I don't think the balance of excitement and safety has been met, I think circuits are safe but I think they could be more exciting while still being safe. The problem is, the main source of excitement was the danger of certain corners and how gutsy you had to be to make the most time in them. But I think this can be achieved in a safe sense, I want more corners like the swimming pool section at Monaco - where you get a true sense of speed and it still feels dangerous, even if nowadays its not too bad.
I don't actually think designing the track to create overtaking is hugely important - you can overtake at pretty much at any track really and in my opinion F1 was never about the quantity of overtakes, but the quality. Overtakes were more common but still relatively rare even back in the "golden years", but they were nearly always special to watch, it was never "easy" to overtake, it required skill.
Fix the cars is really what should be done, seeing as many of the old tracks we still race on haven't changed hugely and even slower series like GP2 manage to overtake most often! And before anyone says "spec series" - overtaking is not created by spec series, if anything, it prevents it.

 

[Beerz]

Tracks for braver drivers and better build chassis, not for better engines and better brakes.

I have one word for you: Portimão. 👍

 

[Ian Poole]

Couldn't agree more on Portimao

Okay, I have only driven it on computer games and seen it in use once when A1GP went there but the track is simple, no BS and everything that you could want out of a circuit.

The only downside to the circuit and it is a slight downside to it is that some of the corners are a little too narrow but that is my opinion.

Also ludes, I find your point about the FIA being the ones at fault for circuit design intriguing to say the least. I know Tilke has to work with them guidelines but surely the FIA see something wrong with what he is building them or are many of them too blind with red in their eyes to see it?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I know Tilke has to work with them guidelines but surely the FIA see something wrong with what he is building them or are many of them too blind with red in their eyes to see it?

What do you mean when you say they're blind to it? Is there an actual criteria to what defines a good circuit aside from the regulations? Because as far as the FIA is concerned, a circuit is good for racing provided it follows those rules. Circuits like Sakhir are not bad circuits. There's plenty of passing opportunties; turns one and four have produced a lot of action. There were twenty-one passes there this year, four more than in 2009 and the circuit's second-best race in terms of overtaking. Granted, twelve of those moves were by the established teams slipping by the newer ones, but there were twenty-one passes nonetheless.

Formula 1's biggest problems right now are the fans and the teams: the fans bitch and moan about the lack of overtaking and supposedly bland circuits, but not once have I seen a clear and concise expectation from them. When you say you want more overtaking, what do you mean by it? Do you want it to increase by 10%? 20%? More? You just say you want more overtaking, you expect the FIA to read your minds and produce the rules that suit you, and then you're the first ones to whine about it when the rules don't match your vision of it. Some people seem to want to see a dozen moves a lap, which is never going to happen.

Even worse are the teams: they talk about "improving the show", but like the fans, they never give a definition of how they intend to do it. "Improving the show" has become synonymous with "more overtaking", but it's evident that in spite of all their talk about it, the teams couldn't care less about it. They actively trawl the regulations, looking for loopholes to exploit and produce cars that produce more downforce - and therefore more speed - at the expense of the ability to overtake. They will gladly sacrifice "the show" if it means they have an advantage. It's as if they want the show to improve on the condition that everyone else does it while they're out front. Now, you could hold them all to the spirit of the rules and make everyone do things properly, but as soon a one team starts exploiting the rulebook, all of the teams have to or else the people who did it will simpyl run away with it.

Formula 1's problem isn't its circuits. It needs an attitude change, and until it gets just that, any changes it makes will be for nothing. We need to see an emphasis on mechanical grip instead of aerodynamic, but it's going to be a tough fight becausethe teams will not willingly give up anything that gives them an advantage. I think the system of awarding television rights based on final championship position should be scrapped. Instead, award the money to whoever does the most to reduce their reliance on aerodynamic grip and increase their cars' mechanical grip, and enforce a budget cap to stop teams like McLaren Ferrari - for whom television rights only account for a very small portion of their budget -from simpy deciding "Screw it, we don't need the money from FOM" and making more aero-centric cars.

Get rid of aerodynamics. Enforce single-plane front and rear wings, and ditch things like the McLaren "snorkel" (and shark fins while we're at it just to be sure). Make parts that are so important aerodynamically - like the diffuser - mandatory spec parts of the most basic design. Bring back wider-track front wheels, and mandate the use of smaller or steel brake discs (or possibly smaller steel brake discs). Re-introduce KERS as a mandatory, standardised part, and give drivers various options to use (ie 80bhp extra for ten seconds or 160bhp for five). Limit the number and extent of upgrades a team can introduce over the course of a season, and enforce homologation. The focus of the racing should be about whoever is the best driver first, last and always - whoever has the best car shouldn't come into it (or should at least be a distant second place).

I guarantee you: making changes like that will be much more effective than extensive circuit re-designs. Jump on GT4 and do a lap of La Sarthe an the Nurburgring, and you'll notice a strange curiosity: both circuits have long straights that end in heavy braking zones, a mainstay of the Tilke design ethos. In fact, the Nurburgring had no less than four examples of it, and these are some of the oldest circuits in the world. Yet Tilke is criticised as an uninspired and insipid designer.

Changing the cars will also be cheaper than changing the circuits. The problem is the unhelpful attitude of fans and teams alike.

 

[Ian Poole]

What do you mean when you say they're blind to it? Is there an actual criteria to what defines a good circuit aside from the regulations? Because as far as the FIA is concerned, a circuit is good for racing provided it follows those rules. Circuits like Sakhir are not bad circuits. There's plenty of passing opportunties; turns one and four have produced a lot of action. There were twenty-one passes there this year, four more than in 2009 and the circuit's second-best race in terms of overtaking. Granted, twelve of those moves were by the established teams slipping by the newer ones, but there were twenty-one passes nonetheless.

Formula 1's biggest problems right now are the fans and the teams: the fans bitch and moan about the lack of overtaking and supposedly bland circuits, but not once have I seen a clear and concise expectation from them. When you say you want more overtaking, what do you mean by it? Do you want it to increase by 10%? 20%? More? You just say you want more overtaking, you expect the FIA to read your minds and produce the rules that suit you, and then you're the first ones to whine about it when the rules don't match your vision of it. Some people seem to want to see a dozen moves a lap, which is never going to happen.

Even worse are the teams: they talk about "improving the show", but like the fans, they never give a definition of how they intend to do it. "Improving the show" has become synonymous with "more overtaking", but it's evident that in spite of all their talk about it, the teams couldn't care less about it. They actively trawl the regulations, looking for loopholes to exploit and produce cars that produce more downforce - and therefore more speed - at the expense of the ability to overtake. They will gladly sacrifice "the show" if it means they have an advantage. It's as if they want the show to improve on the condition that everyone else does it while they're out front. Now, you could hold them all to the spirit of the rules and make everyone do things properly, but as soon a one team starts exploiting the rulebook, all of the teams have to or else the people who did it will simpyl run away with it.

Formula 1's problem isn't its circuits. It needs an attitude change, and until it gets just that, any changes it makes will be for nothing. We need to see an emphasis on mechanical grip instead of aerodynamic, but it's going to be a tough fight becausethe teams will not willingly give up anything that gives them an advantage. I think the system of awarding television rights based on final championship position should be scrapped. Instead, award the money to whoever does the most to reduce their reliance on aerodynamic grip and increase their cars' mechanical grip, and enforce a budget cap to stop teams like McLaren Ferrari - for whom television rights only account for a very small portion of their budget -from simpy deciding "Screw it, we don't need the money from FOM" and making more aero-centric cars.

Get rid of aerodynamics. Enforce single-plane front and rear wings, and ditch things like the McLaren "snorkel" (and shark fins while we're at it just to be sure). Make parts that are so important aerodynamically - like the diffuser - mandatory spec parts of the most basic design. Bring back wider-track front wheels, and mandate the use of smaller or steel brake discs (or possibly smaller steel brake discs). Re-introduce KERS as a mandatory, standardised part, and give drivers various options to use (ie 80bhp extra for ten seconds or 160bhp for five). Limit the number and extent of upgrades a team can introduce over the course of a season, and enforce homologation. The focus of the racing should be about whoever is the best driver first, last and always - whoever has the best car shouldn't come into it (or should at least be a distant second place).

I guarantee you: making changes like that will be much more effective than extensive circuit re-designs. Jump on GT4 and do a lap of La Sarthe an the Nurburgring, and you'll notice a strange curiosity: both circuits have long straights that end in heavy braking zones, a mainstay of the Tilke design ethos. In fact, the Nurburgring had no less than four examples of it, and these are some of the oldest circuits in the world. Yet Tilke is criticised as an uninspired and insipid designer.

Changing the cars will also be cheaper than changing the circuits. The problem is the unhelpful attitude of fans and teams alike.

Have you ever thought about becoming a member of the FIA sir?

 

[Ardius]

What do you mean when you say they're blind to it? Is there an actual criteria to what defines a good circuit aside from the regulations? Because as far as the FIA is concerned, a circuit is good for racing provided it follows those rules. Circuits like Sakhir are not bad circuits. There's plenty of passing opportunties; turns one and four have produced a lot of action. There were twenty-one passes there this year, four more than in 2009 and the circuit's second-best race in terms of overtaking. Granted, twelve of those moves were by the established teams slipping by the newer ones, but there were twenty-one passes nonetheless.

Formula 1's biggest problems right now are the fans and the teams: the fans bitch and moan about the lack of overtaking and supposedly bland circuits, but not once have I seen a clear and concise expectation from them. When you say you want more overtaking, what do you mean by it? Do you want it to increase by 10%? 20%? More? You just say you want more overtaking, you expect the FIA to read your minds and produce the rules that suit you, and then you're the first ones to whine about it when the rules don't match your vision of it. Some people seem to want to see a dozen moves a lap, which is never going to happen.

Even worse are the teams: they talk about "improving the show", but like the fans, they never give a definition of how they intend to do it. "Improving the show" has become synonymous with "more overtaking", but it's evident that in spite of all their talk about it, the teams couldn't care less about it. They actively trawl the regulations, looking for loopholes to exploit and produce cars that produce more downforce - and therefore more speed - at the expense of the ability to overtake. They will gladly sacrifice "the show" if it means they have an advantage. It's as if they want the show to improve on the condition that everyone else does it while they're out front. Now, you could hold them all to the spirit of the rules and make everyone do things properly, but as soon a one team starts exploiting the rulebook, all of the teams have to or else the people who did it will simpyl run away with it.

Formula 1's problem isn't its circuits. It needs an attitude change, and until it gets just that, any changes it makes will be for nothing. We need to see an emphasis on mechanical grip instead of aerodynamic, but it's going to be a tough fight becausethe teams will not willingly give up anything that gives them an advantage. I think the system of awarding television rights based on final championship position should be scrapped. Instead, award the money to whoever does the most to reduce their reliance on aerodynamic grip and increase their cars' mechanical grip, and enforce a budget cap to stop teams like McLaren Ferrari - for whom television rights only account for a very small portion of their budget -from simpy deciding "Screw it, we don't need the money from FOM" and making more aero-centric cars.

Get rid of aerodynamics. Enforce single-plane front and rear wings, and ditch things like the McLaren "snorkel" (and shark fins while we're at it just to be sure). Make parts that are so important aerodynamically - like the diffuser - mandatory spec parts of the most basic design. Bring back wider-track front wheels, and mandate the use of smaller or steel brake discs (or possibly smaller steel brake discs). Re-introduce KERS as a mandatory, standardised part, and give drivers various options to use (ie 80bhp extra for ten seconds or 160bhp for five). Limit the number and extent of upgrades a team can introduce over the course of a season, and enforce homologation. The focus of the racing should be about whoever is the best driver first, last and always - whoever has the best car shouldn't come into it (or should at least be a distant second place).

I guarantee you: making changes like that will be much more effective than extensive circuit re-designs. Jump on GT4 and do a lap of La Sarthe an the Nurburgring, and you'll notice a strange curiosity: both circuits have long straights that end in heavy braking zones, a mainstay of the Tilke design ethos. In fact, the Nurburgring had no less than four examples of it, and these are some of the oldest circuits in the world. Yet Tilke is criticised as an uninspired and insipid designer.

Changing the cars will also be cheaper than changing the circuits. The problem is the unhelpful attitude of fans and teams alike.

Firstly, I don't see whats wrong with saying "we need more overtaking". It doesn't need to be quantified - the quantity poeple want is what we had in the 80s basically, this is always the era people refer to. Basically we don't have enough now, why does this need explaining? A percentage doesn't make the answer more credible.
I don't think anyone is demanding NASCAR or Touring car levels of overtaking (and if they are, they shouldn't be watching F1).
I find it laughable you think the fans are the ones who should be making the rules , so you're saying the FIA are the least responsible for the effects of rule changing?
I don't see why we should feel sorry for the FIA if they have got it wrong again, sounds more like you're saying "shut up and enjoy it". F1 clearly needs changing - if people don't complain, it clearly won't get changed.

Now the teams, I agree have some responsibility to help improve F1. However, its hardly surprising they will try to gain an advantage - its motorsport. This is why we have the FIA ultimately to decide the rules, not the teams. They can help guide the FIA, but they cannot be the rule-makers. Competitors should never be the rule-makers for the reasons you have stated. Therefore, its not really their fault either.

I agree the problem is the aerodynamics. Your suggestion though is not Formula 1. Formula 1 has always been about the battle of teams who construct their own car. If you take away all the aspects of design, its just a spec series and this is not F1.
You're approaching it as if Formula 1 is a series about the individual, about the driver. It has never been this. It has always been a team sport and the driver makes up a small amount of the overall whole. We have many spec series to analyse drivers in "equal machinery" (I contest it is ever truly equal - a car will always favour one driver's skills over anothers). This is not F1's purpose.
F1 has always been about the best car first, driver is secondary.

I think aerodynamics should be severely restricted in development, and the core focus of F1 should be turned to engines and other areas of the car instead. But I have little suggestions on how to do this.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Firstly, I don't see whats wrong with saying "we need more overtaking". It doesn't need to be quantified - the quantity poeple want is what we had in the 80s basically, this is always the era people refer to. Basically we don't have enough now, why does this need explaining? A percentage doesn't make the answer more credible.
I don't think anyone is demanding NASCAR or Touring car levels of overtaking (and if they are, they shouldn't be watching F1).

Yes, it does need to be quantified. The fans say tey want "more overtaking" and expect the FIA to deliver exactly that. But how can the FIA do it when they have no idea what the fans are expecting? Say they can guarantee an additional ten passing moves per race. That's a pretty good improvement, but there are some fans out there who seem to think that there can be ten passing moves per lap.

I find it laughable you think the fans are the ones who should be making the rules , so you're saying the FIA are the least responsible for the effects of rule changing?

The FIA are not the least responsible, but you'd think they'd consult the fans. The LG Fan Survey might have been available to all fans, but did it really give any input? The best thing the FIA could do would be to employ a designer to actively trawl the regualtions as a team would to find the loopholes - and close them. They could also have a non-championship race (good for new events to the calendar) a month before the season opener to observe the new rules in effect and make changes ahead of the season proper.

I don't see why we should feel sorry for the FIA if they have got it wrong again, sounds more like you're saying "shut up and enjoy it". F1 clearly needs changing - if people don't complain, it clearly won't get changed.

First of all, I do think fans need to shut up and enjoy it. I've seen it too many times: the fans are only happy when they have something to bitch about, and the more they have to bitch about, the happier they are, because when the FIA gets it wrong, they see it as confirmation that they are right.

Me, I'm all for crtcisms of the sport - provided they are constructive criticisms. Right now, they're not, and I can't remember them ever having been that way.

Now the teams, I agree have some responsibility to help improve F1. However, its hardly surprising they will try to gain an advantage - its motorsport. This is why we have the FIA ultimately to decide the rules, not the teams. They can help guide the FIA, but they cannot be the rule-makers. Competitors should never be the rule-makers for the reasons you have stated. Therefore, its not really their fault either.

Of course they plunder the rules looking for an advantage. But in doing so, they just prove themselves to be hypocrites.

I agree the problem is the aerodynamics. Your suggestion though is not Formula 1. Formula 1 has always been about the battle of teams who construct their own car. If you take away all the aspects of design, its just a spec series and this is not F1.

I'm not saying the entire thing should be a spec series. Just certain parts, like the diffuser. Give the designers freedom, but limit what they can do with it, like enforcing single-plane wings. Get them to come up with innovations that miprove mechaical grip, not aerodynamic.

You're approaching it as if Formula 1 is a series about the individual, about the driver. It has never been this. It has always been a team sport and the driver makes up a small amount of the overall whole. We have many spec series to analyse drivers in "equal machinery" (I contest it is ever truly equal - a car will always favour one driver's skills over anothers). This is not F1's purpose.
F1 has always been about the best car first, driver is secondary.

If the teams truly want to "improve the show", the focus needs to be on the driver.

I think aerodynamics should be severely restricted in development, and the core focus of F1 should be turned to engines and other areas of the car instead. But I have little suggestions on how to do this.

Then open up engine regulations. Allow the teams to develop petrol, diesel, biofuel and even LPG engines. I'd be amenable to opening KERS up to development provided that everyone had to run with it.

Have you ever thought about becoming a member of the FIA sir?

Nope. Don't want to, either. I'm just another fan who thinks he knows what is best for the sport and therefore should not be entrusted with it under any circumstances.

 

[Ardius]

So, the fans should have more input, but they shouldn't complain? Teams are hypocrites for being competitive?
Focusing on the driver is not F1. Again, it doesn't need to focus on the driver, we had plenty of overtaking with unequal machinery. The famous example would be turbos vs N/A engines, one succeeding over the other at particular races. If you want equal machinery, watch any of the many spec series out there, but it is not what Formula 1 has ever been about.
Le Mans is also a team-focused series, and they manage overtaking fine!

I don't see why the FIA can't understand a want for "more overtaking" - it means greater than, increase, etc. When people say it, they mean more than currently...why does this need to be quantified? How can you quantify overtaking anyway? What does "10% more overtaking" mean?
I honestly don't understand your reasoning here, seems a moot point to me - the question the FIA should be asking is "Should overtaking be made easier?" not "How many more moves do you want to see?". Quantifying it just causes rule changes that create artificial overtaking, like the "pace car" stuff in NASCAR, overtaking should be natural. Not to mention it would be incredibly difficult to test the changes to a specific value. How many test races would they have to run? What about the comparative skills of the drivers? The FIA should find out what would make overtaking easier and base the rules on that. Not mess about trying to create a specific number of overtakes.

As for fans, well now you're just generalising to defend the FIA. If the sport was fine and didn't need changing, you would have a point. But the fact we are debating the changes needed right now clearly shows that "fans" are not just "bitching" for the sake of it or because they are never satisfied. You can't get constructive criticism without the brainless criticism too.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So, the fans should have more input, but they shouldn't complain?

No, they should either say something consructive or not say anything at all. Right now, the general vibe is "give us more overtaking" but without giving any idea as to a way to do that. It's like someone walking into a hospital and saying "I'm sick, make me better" but without describing a single symptom.

Teams are hypocrites for being competitive?

Yes. Because they say they want to "improve the show" and then go ahead and do things that clearly do not improve the show.

Focusing on the driver is not F1. Again, it doesn't need to focus on the driver, we had plenty of overtaking with unequal machinery. The famous example would be turbos vs N/A engines, one succeeding over the other at particular races. If you want equal machinery, watch any of the many spec series out there, but it is not what Formula 1 has ever been about.

I'm not saying they should be given equal machinery. I'm saying the emphasis should be moved. Would you rather see a race where the best driver wins or the best car wins?

I don't see why the FIA can't understand a want for "more overtaking" - it means greater than, increase, etc. When people say it, they mean more than currently...why does this need to be quantified? How can you quantify overtaking anyway? What does "10% more overtaking" mean?

Why does it need to be quantified? Because it gives a direction. It gives an objective for the teams and the FIA to work towards. If, at the end of 2010, it is found that there was one more pass than there was in 2009, the FIA could reasonably say "There, we did it: you wanted more overtaking, and we delivered". How do you think that's going to be received?

But on the other hand, an actual, measurable objective will give them something to work towards. If they achieve it, great. If they don't, they can look at why not.

I honestly don't understand your reasoning here, seems a moot point to me - the question the FIA should be asking is "Should overtaking be made easier?" not "How many more moves do you want to see?". Quantifying it just causes rule changes that create artificial overtaking, like the "pace car" stuff in NASCAR, overtaking should be natural. Not to mention it would be incredibly difficult to test the changes to a specific value. How many test races would they have to run? What about the comparative skills of the drivers? The FIA should find out what would make overtaking easier and base the rules on that. Not mess about trying to create a specific number of overtakes.

Fine. Investigate what would make it easir to overtake. Implement it. But set an objective as a measure of success or failure.

As for fans, well now you're just generalising to defend the FIA. If the sport was fine and didn't need changing, you would have a point. But the fact we are debating the changes needed right now clearly shows that "fans" are not just "bitching" for the sake of it or because they are never satisfied. You can't get constructive criticism without the brainless criticism too.

Right now, the brainless criticism seems to be out-weighing the constructive by a very large number to one. I'm not just talking about this forum, mind you. Autosport is notorious for it - anyone who isn't (or wasn't, not that Mosley is gone) was actively attacked by certain factions in an attempt to drive them out. F1 Fanatic gets a good share, as do a few various other forums and blogs that I've watched.

 

[Ardius]

Well, firstly, the internet has never represented the views of all fans everywhere. Secondly, its not really very accurate to say "most of it is brainless criticism" and only refer to your experiences on the internet of fans views. The nature of discussion is that people will be more likely to express views of a negative nature than to praise. But this doesn't mean everyone's view isn't constructive.
Without carrying out an extensive survey, you cannot presume to know all fan's opinions and generalise them so. Sure, you can say the general vibe is that most fans are not happy with the amount of overtaking, but its not really true to say that they are all making stupid comments.

You're carrying on with this line about "giving a target" and I'm going to continue not seeing the point in it - like I said in my previous post, how would you determine the number of overtakes? What counts as an overtake? Should it be when a driver makes a mistake or has an advantage?
Its just not something you can quantify and say "this is what we should do". If it was that easy, it would have been done already.
I'm not bothered about having lots of overtakes in a quantity sense. But I don't like hearing that the drivers don't even get a chance to try, it should be made easier full stop. It doesn't matter how many more per race that creates, as long as it is more possible. The FIA should focus on the dynamics of what makes it easy or hard to overtake and hence change the rules to relfect this. Giving a number to it is irrelevant.
To put it as a simple objective for the FIA - I'd like to see the cars allowed to slipstream each other to overtake. Quite simply, thats the main problem right now. How to achieve this while stopping stupid aero developments, is not something I'm qualified in.

The teams can only "improve the show" so far, but as competitors they can't be expected to drop every competitive advantage, its not their nature to. I don't know why you are clinging on to them as having any higher responsibility than they already have. Its not their job to make the rules, and it should never be.
The FIA needs to get some independent aerodynamicists and engineers to help form the regulations if this is really the problem.

And I would like to see the best team win, because its a team sport. Formula 1 is unique in that it has two championships which are important, and whether you like it or not, the constructors championship has always been important. The car, the driver, the whole package is what makes Formula 1. Its a common misconception by many people that the driver is the be all and end all.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Overtaking in F1 was never a question of quantity, but much more about "quality". It's a bit like football (soccer for americans). You may have 2 or 3 goals in a entire match, but when they happen it's an "explosion" of emotions for football fans. There's a lot in the buildup to it also.

That being the case, I never liked a F1 where the overtaking was made by mechanics, not drivers. In fact, and with some notable exceptions, it almost seems F1 drivers forgot how to overtake and kept relying on their pit crews to do that for them.


One of those exceptions, from an era when the "brains in the pits" started to outweight the "bravery on the track", was Juan Pablo Montoya. Love him or hate him, he sure didn't need regulation changes to pull off some amazing overtaking moves. Any engenier would tell you that the one shown in this clip, at about 3:10, is simply not possible.

 

[tankuroded]

Why this became off-topic?

 

[Ardius]

Easy - tracks you prefer->why some tracks are rubbish->do tracks create more overtaking->what should be done to create more overtaking.

 

[Ian Poole]

Also add in that my fellow Mancuian thinks he can do a better job than a lot of the stiffs at the FIA

 

[adam46]

Brno

 

[tankuroded]

Bumping...

Edit:

Adelaide, Zandvoort, old hockenheim.

I would like to see a new york circuit, but won't hold my breath. Let's face it, even if it does happen, any corners with the potential for overtaking will be neutered by herman tilke. Someone sack him...

We can't see old hockenheim again.

As for NY circuit, why not PD's GT4 New York Circuit? 💡