Was listening to this week’s Autosport F1 podcast this morning. They posited the question “how to fix formula,” but then went on rambling about past history of failed attempts to fix it, unfunny jokes, etc… They didn’t actually answer the question.
So it got me thinking. Specifically, I applied the mental game of “5 Why’s” to the question. Here’s what I came up with:
- Q1: Why is F1 in need of fixing? Answer: Because the races are boring. (Don’t believe me? Talk to my wife, who after every race last year asked me, “So who won? Red Bull again? Why do you watch if you know who’s going to win?” Answer: good question…)
- Q2: Why are the races boring? Answer: because the same team/guy wins every race.
- Q3: Why does the same team/guy win every race? Answer: because they have the fastest car.
- Q4: Why is their car so fast? Answer: Hell if I know, but it is. Coupled with a very good driver, it’s gonna win every week.
- Q5: What can we do to either slow that car down or speed up the others to make the racing more competitive? Answer: Apply a “stick and carrot” to the race winner’s car.
Okay, so what is the stick and carrot thing? Here’s one possibility: The Stick: if you win a race on Sunday, you get the normal points, but also get penalized with a big 10kg lead weight bolted onto your car for the next race. The Carrot: if you win with that extra weight next weekend, you get an extra championship point or two added to the normal points of that race, but you also get another big fat 10kg lead weight bolted on. And so on.
(Don’t like the added weight solution? Okay, make it a 1mm smaller restrictor plate on the intake, or some other easily checked “stick” applied to the car. Doesn’t matter. Just something to slow the car down a little relative to the other cars.)
By mid-season, the Red Bulls would be 50-70kg heavier than the other cars, and suddenly Ferrari and Mercedes are actually winning (and getting sticked/carrotted themselves) and by the end of the season, Williams is in the mix to actually win a race or two, and the overall championship is much less clear.
That would fix F1.
Okay, so how stupid is this idea?
fidelity101 said:
Andretti
Sure, for the diehards/old-timers out there that want to see Andretti back in the game. But it's not going to make the racing any better and, hence, ensure watcher retention... (Heck, most everyone under 40 have no real understanding of what the name/brand Andretti means. He's just another rich guy wanting to get into F1)
j_tso
Dork
2/1/24 10:42 a.m.
They call that "success ballast" and it results in fans complaining about penalizing winners. These are also the same fans who say it's boring when the same people win, unless it's their team of course. It has worked in the WEC (Le Mans racers) and Japan's Super GT.
I'm not sure how to fix it, but I think the budget cap is a step in the right direction. A lot of the lack of competition is teams being able to outspend others in development.
Also cutting down aero would help facilitate overtaking.
Tom1200
PowerDork
2/1/24 10:42 a.m.
Take all the wings off them........don't believe me.......watch Goodwood.
j_tso said:
They call that "success ballast" and it results in fans complaining about penalizing winners.
This is why you have to add the carrot into the mix; i.e., extra points added for winning with the ballast. When writing a contract with sticks (e.g., liquidated damages) you always need to offset that with carrots (performance bonuses). This would be along the same vein.
Tom1200 said:
Take all the wings off them........don't believe me.......watch Goodwood.
Fun to say, but this would never, ever happen in F1.
In reply to j_tso :
I like the idea of a budget cap, but I'm willing to bet that some teams are resourceful enough to still out-develop the others while keeping it all under budget. That being said, I think it's worth trying.
As frustrating as it is, I'd like to think that changing the rulebook every season could at least shake up the field–though I can also see how that could negatively impact teams with less funding.
At any rate, I write about how cars make me feel, so maybe I'm not the best person to ask about fixing F1.
IMO, budget caps are so incredibly hard to enforce. Same with restricting engineering/development time. What's to keep an aero engineer with taking "vacation" and "playing at home" on his $50K desktop running his own copy of CFD software, and then coming into work the next month with a great idea he had while driving to work?
IMHO, F1 needs to enforce their own rule concept ideas- where IF you see a team find a way to make it impossible to follow within a car length- eliminate that. That's what was supposed to happen, but teams have figure out how to spill the wake and make it impossible to be close. We know that nothing is going to happen until '26- so the next two seasons are going to suck.
As for penalizing the fastest team- I'm not in favor of that- it's always, always, always been a feature of F1 for the best to be the fastest. The budget cap hasn't really changed that- it's made it harder for the rich teams to catch up, but it keeps the poor teams from falling so far back.
On a side note, it's interesting that we look back at the Senna years as golden ages, when his McLaren was the utterly dominant car, and won almost all of the races. McLaren, Lotus, Williams, Ferrari, etc- all have had "the car" for a season or two. And we think it's so boring now?
People complain about DRS, which deals with the aero problem, calling it a gimmick. But any performance penalty laid out is an even worse gimmick to me.
Either ban Adrian Newey, or force him to change teams every other year. The guy is a difference maker.
Make them all drive safety modernized versions of early 60's F1 cars (skinny tires, no aero etc). Those would be WILDLY more entertaining to watch race.
Does how much a team spends dictate who wins?....
Go backwards and abandon the near-spec rules and XL sized cars. Let the teams run whatever engine they want, whatever gearbox they want, and however many tires they want (okay joking on the last one). Make the wings single element, raise the cars, and raise the minimum weights.
Because of this post, I looked back at other years. Just grabbed a few for comparison.
- 1961: 2nd place finished an average of 13 seconds behind, 3rd was 45 seconds and 4th was 1306
- 1971: 2nd place averaged 21 seconds behind, 3rd was 673 and 4th was 3438
So, the idea that racing was closer in the "golden years" may not really hold up. I got stuff to do, so I'll continue through some of the years later.
-Rob
The most interesting races lately are when it rains a little or tires are exploding or not behaving as expected. So crappy tire quality control or random sprinklers on the track are my two suggestions.
Do away with team drivers. All the drivers work for F1. The manufacturers draw on Sunday for who their driver will be the following weekend.
j_tso
Dork
2/1/24 12:34 p.m.
Another thing to consider, do we want new cars to be faster and break lap records?
Or should we accept speeds and lap times reached their pinnacle in the past and just have closer racing?
Other then Max driving off into the distance the races happening behind him has generally been entertaining.
I loath RB and the younger Max,but I wouldn't change rules to penelize the outstanding results they are achieving.
Colin Wood said:
In reply to j_tso :
I like the idea of a budget cap, but I'm willing to bet that some teams are resourceful enough to still out-develop the others while keeping it all under budget. That being said, I think it's worth trying.
As frustrating as it is, I'd like to think that changing the rulebook every season could at least shake up the field–though I can also see how that could negatively impact teams with less funding.
At any rate, I write about how cars make me feel, so maybe I'm not the best person to ask about fixing F1.
Cough *catering budget* cough
I still think they should put front runners into back marker cars.
Have them post laps and if Max is still close to his regular pace (within a predetermined margin) in any back marker car then they know the money needs to be spent on driver training.
And make it so the better drivers have to push or face a 2 position loss of starting grid or something (enough to be more annoyance vs absolute race changer), then drivers can't sandbag and come back saying 'The car is garbage' and be done with it. Of course if they are visibly pushing and speaking of how the car feels horrible over comms the whole time, then that's a different story and the team knows 'Our car is garbage, they said its doing 'XYZ' so we have a place to start'
It equalizes the playing field better, broadcasting it adds something for viewers (who doesn't want to hear Max complain about how horrible the slow car is?) It doesn't penalize the winning teams negatively (other than some time for the drivers, 3laps)
Tom1200 said:
Take all the wings off them........don't believe me.......watch Goodwood.
Not the wings, per se. Removing all the other tabs, flaps, vanes, etc. and going to a flat bottom with a limit on floor rake will do a lot. The wings can be a single element, regulated to a maximum area, so no tabs, flaps, etc but allow a Gurney lip. All this can be easily policed and would reduce the budget because there would be only so much development possible. Aero would take a back seat to mechanical grip, horsepower and driver skill. As for horsepower, normally aspirated non-hybrid engines with a max displacement and free choice of fuels... alcohol, hydrogen, dead dinosaurs, coal, whatever you want.
BadBug said:
IMO, budget caps are so incredibly hard to enforce...
Claim rule...
On another note I will again make my pitch for bonus points being paid out to top 10 qualifying cars for taking a 10 place grid drop. i.e. if you qualify on the pole, you can drop to 11th and be awarded X points per position gained as well as the standard point haul. Not sure what X should be but it's a lot of fun when someone has to start back on the drid with a fast car.
j_tso said:
Another thing to consider, do we want new cars to be faster and break lap records?
Or should we accept speeds and lap times reached their pinnacle in the past and just have closer racing?
For safety reasons it's basically been accepted that cornering speeds have reached their pinnacle, they can't let the cars go any faster in corners on the existing tracks for safety reasons, and straight line speed issues are probably not far behind. So the main limitation to lower lap times is now the fact that there are spectators...
In reply to BadBug :
That sounds a lot like how we apply ballast in the GRM AC series, and it helps keep the racing close rather than letting everyone easily separate into 3 packs of aliens, mid-pack runners, and backmarkers. We don't give added points for winning with weight, but if you finish outside the top 3 a unit of ballast is removed.
