News On F1

Formula 1 Store
Tickets & Merchandise

Award 50 points for a first place


F1 Merchandise
blank.gif (809 bytes)
blank.gif (809 bytes)
Main Page
Formula 1 News
2015 F1 Schedule
2015 F1 Line-up
2014 F1 Schedule
F1 Teams
F1 Drivers
NewsOnF1 Mobile
10 'n' Pole
Register - Submit
F1 Regulations
The Forums
Live F1 Coverage
Motorsport Shop
UK - USA
Motorsport Calendar

F1 Merchandise UK
F1 Merchandise USA

F1 Tours
F1 Tickets
F1 Diecast
F1 Videos
F1 Games
F1 Trivia
NewsOnF1 on Twitter
MotoGP Tickets
Past Formula 1 Seasons
2012 F1 Results
2011 F1 Results
2010 F1 Results
2009 F1 Results
2008 F1 Results
2007 F1 Results
2006 F1 Results
2005 F1 Results
2004 F1 Results
2003 F1 Results

2002 F1 Results

2001 F1 Results

2000 F1 Results

1999 F1 Results

1998 F1 Results

1997 F1 Results
Links
2010 World Cup
Translate
Search
Contact Us
About
Archives
Your Say
Diagnosis & Prognosis
By the Heretic
Controversy Corner
The Real Race
By the Quali-flyer
F1 Testing
F1 Team Reports
8 'n' Pole
2006 World Cup

Download the NewsOnF1.com
toolbar
powered by Alexa

Other responses

Dear Heretic: It's good to have you back! I enjoy thinking through things in your company.
On the Concorde Agreement, of course you're correct. The understanding, then, was that licensing and management were key to an enhanced revenue stream. And Bernie's living proof that they were, indeed! The problem is that maximizing the bottom line inevitably reduces competition (since competition is expensive, unpredictable, and hard to manage.
People who thrive under these conditions create corporations; they don't manage them. 
As to speed and overtaking; of course, you're correct on both points (aerodynamics and marbles make overtaking noticeably less likely --especially when the "points system" rewards consistency over winning. One way to increase overtaking, without making any other change, would be to award 50 points for a first place; 15 for second, 10 for third, 6 for fourth, 4 for fifth, 3 for sixth, 2 for seventh and 1 for eighth. It would be worth it for everyone, then, to drive like Juan Pablo because it would cost you far less to risk passing than it does under the current point system. 
Changing the tyre rules will help, too, as you point out. And I also agree that George W. Bush must have been the technical advisor on the aero rule changes! They are silly and confusing. 
So are you correct, as have been most knowledgeable people I've read on the engine "rules." But I don't think going to V-8's will be the Gotterdamerung you do; we had some pretty great racing back in the 60's with V-8's. Where I agree is that the proposed rules are "bullshit." I think it was Norbert Haug I saw the other day saying it doesn't make any difference to the manufacturers's spending whether they're developing a V-10 or a V-8 and whether it runs for one race distance or five. So if the proposed rule changes don't reduce spending and are a silly way to reduce speed, why have them? The only think I can think of is that somebody's [I wouldn't name any names but his initials are M.&M.] ego is involved here.
So, too, the nonsense about a third, non-point scoring car. Why not a random roving safety car? Each team draws a number (which they keep secret). Just before the flag drops, three numbers are posted. The holders of those numbers can send out the safety car whenever they decide. Sorry, but I think they make up these proposals after one too many Guinesses! 
I have to disagree with you about the notion that "slowing the F1 machines would lead to less interest in the sport. When they realized, over at the Brickyard (the 500) that Luyendyk's 236 (almost 237) qualifying average was a prescription for disaster, they killed the trend with drastic new rules. No more does the track announcer dramatically intone, "It's a New Track Record"; in fact, no one's heard these words at Indy since 1996. And the racing's better (and closer) than ever! But in no way is either the IRL or the (slightly faster) Championship Group (or whatever they call themselves these days), the "premier motor sport." 
In the first place, both of them are limited to two or three chassis, two or three engine packages (mostly built in the dear old U.K.); whatever "edge" a team has it's strictly managerial and skills related --engineering and innovation are strictly proscribed. And so, for my money, it's an entertaining and exciting kind of motor racing; but it isn't the "premier." 
On to Shanghai (where maybe someone will take Bernie and Max "hostage" and we can forget about them and get on with racing). Like you, I was disappointed by Renault at Monza; I had picked both drivers to finish in the points (F.A. 6th; J.T. 8th). But I also picked Kimi to win (I'm incurably optimistic). 
The story of the year (besides Michael's incredible seventh) is J.P.M.'s carrying sir Frank on his back! Once again, he's making enough points to keep BMW Williams alive, if not competitive enough to take out BAR or Renault. Would anyone have believed that last March?! That MacLaren would fall off the charts and Williams slide out of contention?! But Juan's DRIVING alone has kept them in the points. It's for this reason alone that I'm picking him to take the pole and win the inaugural Chinese G.P. No one knows the course, so the one who "hangs it out the farthest with out losing it "should take it. And I don't see Michael willing to risk injury at this stage; I don't see Jenson or Rubens capable of a real stand off with JPM into a corner. Only Kimi has a chance and the skills to take it from Juan --and Kimi's luck, like his machinery, this year has been rotten. Ciao and good racing! - Jim W (Reference Heretic 6-13 - This Concorde like the supersonic Concorde is dated)

The Heretic replies:

Hi Jim, 

Like always, I enjoyed hearing from you but as we are in accord there is little that I can add to your comments.

I was opposed when they changed the points scoring because I felt that it encourages “safe” driving as, in a normal season when one team is not this dominant, consistently coming second will almost guarantee the championship. Changing the points structure to reward overtaking substantially (not just by one point) is a good idea.

I do not have a problem with V8s. I agree that they could still give everything that the current V10 gives but I was already opposed to the limitation to 10 pots because I firmly feel that F1 should be allowed to be on the forefront of motor racing technology – not technically hobbled by stupid rules.

I also cannot see how the FIA thinks that they can make the sport cheaper for teams without damaging it. Even if they restricted it to one cylinder that has to last for a year the fastest team will always be the one that throws money at the problem. My nine-year-old daughter understands that, so you may be right, MM may be using Bush as his intellect consultant.

My concern with slowing the sport by restricting of power is purely a fear that they will fall foul of the slower formulas, which I believe can happen if politics and stupid ruling prevails. Ruling so that the focus moves from technology to management could also, certainly in the initial stages, make it a poor shadow of CART and if they lose following as a result they may never get back to being the premier sport.

Well, Williams were not fast enough to get JPM there. Maybe in Japan.

The Heretic

Back to Top
Other responses
Back to the Diagnosis & Prognosis Main Page


Loading


Official 2007 F1 Season Review

Autocourse 2007 Annual

 

F1 Merchandise US

F1 Merchandise UK

Motorsport Magazines

Formula 1 Annuals

Formula 1 Yearbooks

Formula 1 Season Reviews

Formula 1 Technical Books

Formula 1 Design Books



Auto Magazines

Formula 1 Titles

Race Driving Titles

Race Car Design Titles


Ayrton Senna

Past Formula 1 Drivers