c_maguire

F1 is caught in its own trap.
Being a prototype championship it is a testing ground for all kinds of technology (aerodynamic, electronic, mechanical design/construction etc) that the teams hope will lead to a faster lap time.
Unfortunately since the back end of the Eighties rather than improving the spectacle (which it certainly did up to that point) the technology now serves to detract from the spectacle. I'm sure the geeks responsible for the technology are regularly shooting their loads at the results of their endeavours, but I feel the paying/viewing public are being short-changed.
But F1 stopped giving a damn about us a long time ago.
Kevin

Leslie

I was turned off by Touring Car racing when I saw that it seems to be a contact sport with deliberate "nerfing" to send a fellow competitor off into the weeds. That is not the real idea behind track racing!

If you like that sort of thing, then best to go to the stock car racing stadiums where it is all part of the game!

Les

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

Just remember F1 is still throttled back by rules and regulations, we need a series where the only rules are overall dimensions and only one driver, then we could see things like

Full active aero
active suspension
covered wheels
wheels something other than 13" diameter!
G suits.
etc
etc

I doubt any track today would have the appropriate safety facilties for the speed the cars could produce, so perhaps if theres money available for all these new tracks, why not cater for the ultimate championship?

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

The problem with that is that you will create a massive speed differential between the top and bottom teams. It wouldn't matter what tracks you raced on.

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

You have that now effectively. Just maybe the gap would be bigger.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

No we don't! The gap today on an average track between the fastest and slowest times is around 2.5 seconds. Compare that to around 7 or 8 seconds of just 15 years ago.

If the gap as big as you say, why aren't faster cars able to come through the field quicker? Because a 2 or 3 percent speed differential is not big!

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

With the fueling regs Trulli was 5 secs a lap slower than a similarly middle order car thanks to different fuel loads.

Qualifying of 107% Pole time or such like eliminates this anyway.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

That was due to Trulli being heavily fueled. Just look at the Qualifying times in Q1 and Q2 if you don't believe me.

Also, the 107% was scrapped since the new style of qualifying was brought in.

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

yes I know, I'm just hypothesising my futuristic championship

Howerever taking the last race into account, you could have seen differential racing lap times of those 7-8 secs on any given lap with a heavily fuelled Force India and , say Alonso due a pitstop. Those days are still here thanks to the refuelling rules, that was my point.