The article forbidding team orders (39.1) is deleted. Teams will be reminded that any actions liable to bring the sport into disrepute are dealt with under Article 151c of the International Sporting Code and any other relevant provisions.
Meaning what happened in Germany with Massa and Alonso still wont quite be accepted.
Silly isn't it. Removing TC to be replaced by KERS is just shit, infact, KERS is just shit, why do we want to see gimmick push to pass? It's would be like footballers kicking a ball 10 times and then getting the opportunity to score a goal with almost no contest.
KERS and adjustable wings are a very 'canned' sort of overtaking aid though, its really an over complicated solution to a problem thats really simple, only trouble is the simple solution involved un-learning a decades worth of aerodynamics knowledge.
Fixed. And no. F1 drivers have been overtaking for years without KERS, why don't they just go back in time (regulations wise) to find a sweeter spot instead of gifting KERS... it's silly.
I agree with Blue Flame. Before you know it, overtaking will be done by everyone because its possible. It combines the boys from the men and makes them all look like robots.
I say no overtaking gimmicks.. separate the boys from the men.
Cars need to be designed that are less aerodynamically sensetive to turbulence from other cars, and that means aerodynamic pieces with simpler profiles.
I think it has more to do with the tracks, they need to be designed to encourage overtaking at as many turns as possible, not just stick a hairpin at the end of a straight.
Whilst this is true, tracks like Dijon don't really over much in terms of 'overtaking opportunity offering corners' due to it's flowing, corner rounded nature, but that didn't stop Arnoux and Villeneuve in '79. The cars of today, you only have a chance of overtaking on corner entry underbraking, rarely do you see a car being overtaken on the straight due to a slip stream (which proves how severe the aerodynamic 'wake' is).
Which is pretty ironic because that dual was only possible because Dijon is full of tarmac runoffs - something we often hate that "takes out the penalty of making a mistake."
but in the same token, they didn't scamper across the tarmac as soon as they were pushed off line (which todays drivers seem to). They treated going off the circuit as failure.
Plus at Dijon in '79 the run off areas were dusty as hell. Basically just dangerous gravel traps.
Yeah that too, the best circuits are designed almost by accident. Tilke tries too hard to create interesting circuits and the result is too contrived. Theres too much emphasis on asthetics and not enough on the track itself. It'd be interesting to see the process Tilke and co go through when designig a track, just to see how much thought they really put into it.
I agree, most original tracks were based on public roads that eventually shut down, and alot of tracks are point to point and the road only turns where there is an obsticle.
One of the problem is that he most of the time can't fully control the area chosen for the track(and therefore often ends up with flat places), and has to follow strict safety measures(uber wide track, tarmac runaway area of XX meters, etc).
Though I really dislike his work, I guess he's not the only one to blame.
Quite right hes not the only person to blame, its very easy to think in black and white but of course Tilke isn't the only one involved, essentially his job is to design a Casino/Hotel with a racetrack added on the side.
Like a lot of F1's problems, bad tracks are part caused by the massive commercialisation of the sport, trying to artificially force a 'spectacle' out of the racing to ensure that all the 'markets' around the globe get the same uber glamourous 'product'. Unfortunately for the genuine enthusiasts who can see past all the glitter it all looks very dead and contrived, in the same way genuine musicians feel about reality TV karaoke shows.
Sir, please put The Guardian on the floor and step away.
Quite a large burden of F1's expansion over the years has nothing to do with pleasing the 'markets'. F1 couldn't care less about markets, they are not profitable enough. This is all to do with F1 successfully convincing governments across the world that it is justified to spend billions of public (aka people who couldn't care less about motorsport on the whole) money on this sport. Just think about all the publicly funded drivers, broadcasting, teams, and tracks. I wish F1 really did have to solely rely on the markets for money. It may not have inflated to the unsustainable size it is now. F1, I believe, isn't anywhere near as popular as the money that's spent on it justifies.
Also, like the cars, track design is limited by safety regulation. I am not sure anyone could design a better track than what Tilke can because of these regulations.
The governments and sponsors are the 'markets', what I said still applies. They are interested in parting with so much money because they percieve F1 to be a glamourous spectacle, of course real racing isn't quite like that and but F1 has been made increasingly artificial in order to keep up that image and therefore commercial needs now dictate the direction of the sport more than anything else.
Oh of course, the safety regulations must be the only reason why Abu Dhabi has a huge luxurious hotel built on top of it, and must explain why in Korea they're having to build a business district around the track just to make the whole thing profitable. Meanwhile the track design plays second fiddle to these developments because it makes less money, and genuine racing venues that are dedicated homes to the sport lose out because they don't look pretty enough.
Well I think what market F1 is being aimed at should be described. F1 is a tool for propaganda more than a purely private commercial entity. It has always been that way I guess, 'State Capitalism' as it were, some might just flat say Socialist influence. Like Olympics and World Cups these big so-called investments rarely prove to be truly profitable in any sense. The term profitability is just used to gain justification. If the Korean track was truly a profitable venture it wouldn't need a state-subsidy.
If F1 was a truly private entity and had to rely upon the free market I doubt very much it would be in it's current state. These vast amounts of money that states can spend have distorted what the market truly wants. There hasn't been any real commercial pressure on F1 IMO. We need more commercial pressure not lessEveryone loves Silverstone and Spa but they can't compete against countries willing to spend the amounts the private sector will simply not.
Wishes for the future don't change the past. For all you know NOT allowing 3 car teams means the next Colin Chapman never gets his big break in F1 and thus we miss out on something exciting and innovative.
Although wings and changes in engine position would never be allowed now as motorsport is over-regulated. And not just at F1 level.
Everyone loves Silverstone and Spa but they can't compete against countries willing to spend the amounts the private sector will simply not.