motorsport magazine's petition for f1 reform.

[Roverload]

As outlined here: http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/a-formula-1-r...

they're even sucking up to montezemelo. Clearly motorsports owners are no fans of Bernie but they do make some interesting points. My favorite being no communication between pits and driver and interviews straight from the cockpit immediately after the race. Any thoughts?

[paulyv]

I would gladly forego the previous proposed changes in the list if that meant the final one was instigated. I genuinely think it would make the single largest positive change to the sport.

[scubadude]

Some sightly moronic suggestions- moving to all downforce being underbody generated means if/when a car leave the ground, be that a curb or collision it will literally fly off the track at the suggested greater speeds- IIRC this was why wings came back the last time, they work in more scenarios... not to mention they are somewhere to advertise!

It would seem their final suggestion could be further improved with a cage, rounds and mud though :-)

[designndrive62]

Some of the ideas are interesting but they seem to get more ridiculous as the list goes on to be honest... Seems very narrow minded for a magazine I usually enjoy

Edited by designndrive62 on Thursday 3rd July 16:06

[Some Gump]

I've not read such utter bks since i last went on the huffington post website.

Not only do they want the sports owners to run a charity, they want to create rules that make the sport sound like a farce. No pit boards? They must be insane.

[coppice]

It's meant to stimulate debate and looks like it is doing so. As for the charity point I think one has to be several continents to the right of Thatcher to believe that the current arrangement is equitable . Max sells his then pal Bernie the F1 rights for a century for £1.50. Bernie exploits them to the full(he's good at that but a shame that he holds races on rubbish circuits in joke states like Bahrain watched by 2 expats and a f**ing camel )and then Bernie sells the rights for gazillions and gets re-employed by the buyer for more gazillions. Great business model. Thanks guys , you sold my sport down the f**ing river.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

coppice said:

It's meant to stimulate debate and looks like it is doing so. As for the charity point I think one has to be several continents to the right of Thatcher to believe that the current arrangement is equitable . Max sells his then pal Bernie the F1 rights for a century for £1.50. Bernie exploits them to the full(he's good at that but a shame that he holds races on rubbish circuits in joke states like Bahrain watched by 2 expats and a f**ing camel )and then Bernie sells the rights for gazillions and gets re-employed by the buyer for more gazillions. Great business model. Thanks guys , you sold my sport down the f**ing river.

To be fair, the camel did have a good time.

although something gave him the hump towards the end

[LaurasOtherHalf]

Who wrote it, it reads like something a 12 year old would pen?

[MG511]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

Who wrote it, it reads like something a 12 year old would pen?

I think that is being harsh on 12 year olds. It was in the magazine in April, I almost cancelled my subscription in disgust, the most simplistic, unrealistic crap I have read in some time. I expecy Mark Hughes wrote it, he has another piece in the current magazine about how the small teams need protecting and how drreadful 3 car teams would be. 3 Mercedes, 3 RBs, 3 Ferraris and 3 McLarens in place of Caterham and Marussia? Yes please! He seems to forget that 3 car teams are nothing new, many drives including Gilles Villeneuve started off as 3rd driver in a major team.

[s3fella]

I'd like to see more drivers grabbing the mic and laying down challenges to their rivals, all of whom would naturally be in their motor homes with a closed circuit tv station on to see the altercation.
This happens naturally in WWF, and I see no reason it cannot be implemented in F1.

Hamilton challenging Nico to a donut off, or a series of male beauty contest style challenges, because he chatted up Nicole, who would, naturally, be dolled up to the nines in spandex shorts, push up bras and suspenders, with a camera crew following her every move.

WWF1, here we come.

[MiniMan64]

article said:

2) Absolutely no team PR at the circuit. Drivers and team members would be allowed to say anything they want – penalties for any team found to be interfering in this would be swingeing. TV driver interviews would be conducted fresh out the car at the end of the race – in the pitlane – and not with a bland questioner. The top three would be interviewed together, adrenaline still coursing, before they have had any access or communication with their teams. The combination of participants free to speak their mind would create controversies that the sport thrives on, painting in the colours of the personalities and issues. Any off-track TV coverage would have to be much more reactive in style, with a more urgent hand-held camera approach. High-gloss would be out, immediacy and colour very much in.

[clonmult]

s3fella said:

I'd like to see more drivers grabbing the mic and laying down challenges to their rivals, all of whom would naturally be in their motor homes with a closed circuit tv station on to see the altercation.
This happens naturally in WWF, and I see no reason it cannot be implemented in F1.

Hamilton challenging Nico to a donut off, or a series of male beauty contest style challenges, because he chatted up Nicole, who would, naturally, be dolled up to the nines in spandex shorts, push up bras and suspenders, with a camera crew following her every move.

WWF1, here we come.

1. Its WWE. Not WWF. The WWF is the World Wildlife Fund.
2. WWE is totally scripted. The grabbing of the mic, laying down a challenge - scripted.

[MG511]

clonmult said:

s3fella said:

I'd like to see more drivers grabbing the mic and laying down challenges to their rivals, all of whom would naturally be in their motor homes with a closed circuit tv station on to see the altercation.
This happens naturally in WWF, and I see no reason it cannot be implemented in F1.

Hamilton challenging Nico to a donut off, or a series of male beauty contest style challenges, because he chatted up Nicole, who would, naturally, be dolled up to the nines in spandex shorts, push up bras and suspenders, with a camera crew following her every move.

WWF1, here we come.

1. Its WWE. Not WWF. The WWF is the World Wildlife Fund.
2. WWE is totally scripted. The grabbing of the mic, laying down a challenge - scripted.

Whoosh parrott incoming...

[s3fella]

clonmult said:

1. Its WWE. Not WWF. The WWF is the World Wildlife Fund.
2. WWE is totally scripted. The grabbing of the mic, laying down a challenge - scripted.

Astonishing!



Btw, you're clearly didn't have Sky in the early days when they had 'Screensport' and ran 12 hours of WWF wrestling each day.

[Evangelion]

Never read such a load of bks in my life. I won't comment on the politics etc but with regard to the technical specifications I will continue to say what I have always said:

1 - no engine restrictions. At all.

2 - no downforce. Remove wings and the entire underside of the cars to be flat.

Then we'll see some overtaking.

[Slurms]

Thats a really impressive list of stupid ideas.

Seems more like a wish list of someone who wants to move the sport back to the 1980s.

[The Hypno-Toad]

Slurms said:

Seems more like a wish list of someone who wants to move the sport back to the 1980s.

That'll be Nigel "I was mates with Gilles you know," Roebuck then.

My rules;
1.) Your car has to be 2WD, rear wheel driven, open cockpit, have four wheels and have no driver or braking aids.
2.) Your car must have no moveable aerodynamic devices.
3.) Here is a box. Your car must fit inside this box. Your car must have certain safety structures (cockpit protection, fuel protection, side impact protection, rear impact protection.). Other than that knock yourself out.
4.) Here is a set of scales. Your car must weigh at least (x) with no ballast, fuel or driver to bring it up to weight (x). Other than that knock yourself out. There is no refuelling during the race for an important reason we'll get to in a minute.

And here is Toads revolution rule.
5.) No engine restriction at all. I don't give a crap what you put in the car. V8s, V6s, flat12s, X36s (don't laugh Honda was building one in 1967 before it got banned.), gas turbines, diesels, hybrids, hamsters running round on wheels, don't care.

But how do you stop the cars doing 200mph round every corner and flying off killing hundreds when they have accidents, Mr Toad? Simple.

6.) Here is your fuel tank. It contains (x) litres of fuel. If you all start going to fast, we will reduce the amount of fuel, so you slow down. When you start going to fast again, we will reduce the amount of fuel again.

Therefore everyone is happy.
The fans get interesting cars with a diversity of different ideas to reach the front.
The designers get a challenge which can be refreshed on a regular basis.
The manufacturers get development that can have a real world impact as the whole point of the formula becomes to go as fast as you can on the minimum amount of fuel. Plus their engineers get to stretch their minds.

And all this bks about cost? Tough. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[RichB]

Stirling Moss disagrees with you about the fuel restrictions.

[MiniMan64]

The Hypno-Toad said:

And all this bks about cost? Tough. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

While i agree with the idea in principle, what happens when no one except Ferrari and Mercedes can afford to go racing because the costs are so high?

See the 90s BTCC SuperTourers for reference.

[Crafty_]

MiniMan64 said:

The Hypno-Toad said:

And all this bks about cost? Tough. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

While i agree with the idea in principle, what happens when no one except Ferrari and Mercedes can afford to go racing because the costs are so high?

See the 90s BTCC SuperTourers for reference.

Roebuck started going down this track on a motorsport magazine podcast, whining about F1 being too expensive. The guest was Frank Williams, who very quickly put Roebuck in his place saying something along the lines of "The money is always available if you look hard enough, if thats what it takes to go racing thats what it takes, if you don't like it, don't race".

I like the motorsport mag podcasts but Roebuck doesn't half bang on, moaning about the money, the PR, Bernie, the drivers, the tracks, pretty much everything.

Anyway, back to their reforms...

Commercial
1) So let the teams blow as much money as they possibly can, safe in the knowledge that they'll be bailed out ? bonkers.

3) How on earth are you ever going to police it ? the RRA is a joke because there is no way to enforce it, too many loopholes, this is no different. It'd also cause the bigger guys to buy up the small teams to give them double the budget, run the B team on last years car and spend both teams budget on the A team.

4) So given points 1 and 2 where is the circuit money coming from ? the teams share or the rights holder?

Technical
2) "Total available downforce would have to be somehow limited" - Good luck with that then, why do they think FIA has been reducing aero surfaces year on year ? As someone else said all downforce being done under the car doesn't sound like a particularly bright idea, what happens in the wet ?

3) Because thats exactly what happened last time we had 2 tyre manufacturers right ? Oh thats right, the exact opposite happened...

4) Dear god, the rules are applied inconsistently enough as it is and they suggest making it more so ?

5) And how is this team going to make enough money to survive ?

Human
1) So someone running in a Formula Ford race can get a lap count in their pit board, but its not permitted in F1 ? Just utterly silly.

2) Commercial suicide for the teams.

Thank god Roebuck isn't anywhere near any position of authority.