[sridhu]

http://jalopnik.com/crappy-sounding-...ium=socialflow

I think such measures severely undermines F1 & the sheer pleasure it used to give.

[Maky]

Yes, the noise is one of the things that make F1 cars very attractive especially to a live crowd but I think too much has been made of this. I think bernie is just saying what he's saying because he has an alternate agenda as he usually does whenever he comments about anything to F1. Historically his opinions have always been for selfish reasons and political gain.

Oh and If he really did care for F1 he would let Track organisers keep track-side advertising revenue so the tickets would be cheaper for the fans, He wouldn't charge exorbitant fees for broadcasting rights and our fellow UK F1 fans would still have free F1 on the BBC. He would put a cap on spending in F1.

A change in noise will not negatively effect the spectacle this is a joke, F1 cars have sounded differently throughout the decades and people have still watched it. People will still continue watch it in 2014 and beyond. No, Let me tell you what can effect F1 viewer ship and following, The current Formula dictates a lock on engine development and encourages aero which results in next to no overtakes. This is what makes people switch channels. When we have one constructor and/or driver, Red Bull today & Ferrari in days past, dominating. That is what turns off viewers and in fact did during 2000-2004.
Does Bernard care how F1 cars sound? No, He doesn't care about F1 in general never has. Never will.

[sharc_biker]

Motorsports like F1 is becoming tamer by the day. Engine output reduction, banning turbochargers, on board computers, auto/ tiptronic transmission, etc has reduced the human skill perfection required to race. No wonder people like Ayrton Senna are legends now.

Though the object of all this is safety, it is a sport that needs a very delicate calibration or balance between safety and the purity of the sport itself. But i feel after limiting power outputs, F1 cars should not be scaled down to V6 engines!

I mean what next? in-line fours? 3 cylinder blocks from hatches? 100cc kart engines?
There is a reason why motorsports exist. It is to push the limits of man and machine to the maximum and test each one's individual ability combined with the co-ordination of both to the absolute limits.

And artificially enhancing the exhaust sound? Why not stop usage of actual cars and use the F1 simulators for actual racing instead. They can enhance the sound using 'high end exhausts' from JBL Harman.

The rule-makers at F1 need to understand this delicate balance.

[deetjohn]

I think Jalopnik is off the mark here. I read sometime back in Autosport when they got a preview of the new Merc powerplant, that it is not going to disappoint the fans.

The V6 will sound different, of course it will. The current V8 sound different compared to the old V10. But it is still going to be very LOUD with the turbo.

Andy Cowell, managing director of Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines:

"The engines are going to be loud, but I think sweet sounding," he said on Friday. "The frequency will be higher and, with the turbocharger running at 125,000rpm, they will be loud. When you are stood next to it on the dyno it is not quiet and you need ear defenders.

Read up: Mercedes reveals 2014 Formula 1 engine

Renault's engine technical director Rob White:

"F1 is still going to be very loud, it is still going to be a very violent event," he said.

Read up:Renault unveils first images of 2014 Formula 1 V6 turbo

[kaushik60]

Originally Posted by sharc_biker

Motorsports like F1 is becoming tamer by the day...Though the object of all this is safety...F1 cars should not be scaled down to V6 engines!

I think you might be a little off the mark here buddy.
In the 90s, F1 was definitely made a little tamer to improve safety of drivers. But what is happening next year is not that.

The main objective behind moving to V6 engines this year, is to push engineers towards developing more fuel efficient engines. You can read here that the new power units will hardly make F1 any "slower" or "tamer" than it has been these years. In fact, higher torque levels will result in greater emphasis on driver skill in managing grip levels through corners. This will undoubtedly increase the excitement levels with more cars spinning off the track. What is basically happening is that engineers are being challenged to derive similar (if not higher) levels of engine performance from smaller engines, using lesser fuel. After all, technology developed in F1 can slowly come down to road cars as well. And given that we are moving towards hybrid and increasingly energy efficient cars on the road, this is a welcome move.

So, it would be wrong to say that they are diluting the sport. In fact, this is pushing both the engineer and the driver, more to the limit of their skills than before.

[ghostrider]

Originally Posted by sridhu

http://jalopnik.com/crappy-sounding-...ium=socialflow

I think such measures severely undermines F1 & the sheer pleasure it used to give.

I don't think it severely undermines F1 at all. Some of the best F1 years were the V6 Turbos in the Seventies and Eighties. Just because the cubic displacement and the number of cylinders is going down, that doesn't mean you're undermining the sport. Globally, auto sentiment is moving toward smaller, more efficient engine blocks with forced induction. F1 has to move with the times.

Originally Posted by sharc_biker

F1 cars should not be scaled down to V6 engines!
mean what next? in-line fours? 3 cylinder blocks from hatches? 100cc kart engines?

And why shouldn't they be scaled down to V6s? I've seen several eras of F1 - from V6s to V12s, V10s, the current V8s, and now back to Forced Induction V6s again. Frankly, I'm excited to see what these engines can do. Everyone is already agreed on the fact that the cars will be as fast as they currently are - so there won't be any drop in speed.

Originally Posted by sharc_biker

Motorsports like F1 is becoming tamer by the day. Engine output reduction, banning turbochargers, on board computers, auto/ tiptronic transmission, etc has reduced the human skill perfection required to race. No wonder people like Ayrton Senna are legends now.

Are you kidding me??? Do you know anything at all about F1??? Ayrton Senna's three most legendary cars were V6 turbos powered.
1. The iconic Lotus 98T (the black and gold John Players Special) was a Renault Gordini EF15B, 1,492 cc (91.0 cu in), 90° V6, turbo, mid-engine, longitudinally mounted.
2. It's successor, the equally iconic Lotus 99T (yellow camel colors) was the fantastic Honda RA166-E, 1,494 cc (91.2 cu in), 80° V6 engine.
3. And finally, the all conquering Mclaren MP4/4 was perhaps the most legendary V6 powered car of all time. It ran a Honda RA168-E, a 1,494 cc V6 turbo.

[sridhu]

My objection is not to the V6 but to the artificial enhancement of the sound. If a V6 is good enough, whatever sound comes out of the pipes should be good enough. Why enhance it or modify the sound?

Also F1 has become more strategy driven than skill driven, IMO. While all these changes the past few years have been made in the name of "bringing the driver back into the race" it has had the opposite effect - races are being won in the pits than on the track.

[manolin]

Originally Posted by Maky

Yes, the noise is one of the things that make F1 cars very attractive especially to a live crowd but I think too much has been made of this. I think bernie is just saying what he's saying because he has an alternate agenda as he usually does whenever he comments about anything to F1. Historically his opinions have always been for selfish reasons and political gain.

Oh and If he really did care for F1 he would let Track organisers keep track-side advertising revenue so the tickets would be cheaper for the fans, He wouldn't charge exorbitant fees for broadcasting rights and our fellow UK F1 fans would still have free F1 on the BBC. He would put a cap on spending in F1.

A change in noise will not negatively effect the spectacle this is a joke, F1 cars have sounded differently throughout the decades and people have still watched it. People will still continue watch it in 2014 and beyond. No, Let me tell you what can effect F1 viewer ship and following, The current Formula dictates a lock on engine development and encourages aero which results in next to no overtakes. This is what makes people switch channels. When we have one constructor and/or driver, Red Bull today & Ferrari in days past, dominating. That is what turns off viewers and in fact did during 2000-2004.
Does Bernard care how F1 cars sound? No, He doesn't care about F1 in general never has. Never will.

and yet bernie has been the one person under whom f1's popularity has grown the most. What must be realised that while multiple competitive teams make a lot of sense, nothing like big star power to bring it to newer destinations. EPL benefited because of MAN U, F1 benefited from Ferrari.

There is racing, and then there is business, and in F1, they can't survive without each other. By taking it global, Bernie has made F1 far more sustainable than before.

[ghostrider]

Originally Posted by Maky

He would put a cap on spending in F1.

A change in noise will not negatively effect the spectacle this is a joke, F1 cars have sounded differently throughout the decades and people will still continue watch it in 2014 and beyond. No, Let me tell you what can effect F1 viewer ship and following, The current Formula dictates a lock on engine development and encourages aero which results in next to no overtakes. This is what makes people switch channels. When we have one constructor and/or driver, Red Bull today & Ferrari in days past, dominating. That is what turns off viewers and in fact did during 2000-2004.
Does Bernard care how F1 cars sound? No, He doesn't care about F1 in general never has. Never will.

I think you're WAY of the mark here. There IS a cap on spending in F1. There IS a cap on testing to make sure that billionaire teams like Ferrari don't get an undue advantage of testing at their own private track.
Smaller teams have become more competitive with measures like these, and they now get much bigger payouts to incentivize their performance to help bankroll them for next year.
What made F1 boring from 2000 - 2004 was Ferrari's unrelenting domination brought on by the perfect combination of a talented driver, a fantastic technical team, and the fact that they had Bridgestone rubber that was tailor-made for them. Their domination had nothing to do with a freeze on engine development and a lack of overtaking - no one was fast enough to overtake them in the first place.

Originally Posted by manolin

and yet bernie has been the one person under whom f1's popularity has grown the most. What must be realised that while multiple competitive teams make a lot of sense, nothing like big star power to bring it to newer destinations. EPL benefited because of MAN U, F1 benefited from Ferrari.
There is racing, and then there is business, and in F1, they can't survive without each other. By taking it global, Bernie has made F1 far more sustainable than before.

Well said. Bernie-bashing's a popular sport but the fact remains that Fq has flourished like crazy in the last ten years. New venues (most of them not to my liking, though) new fans, more competitive seasons, and more overtaking.
Yes, the drivers need to manage their Pirelli rubber, and the ones that have a smoother driving style will be rewarded. Big deal. All it means is that teams and drivers need to be inventive with their strategy and just because someone's led for most the race doesn't mean he'll be the first one across the line when the flag drops because his last stint may be on a different tyre which will allow him to be caught by the chasing pack. It makes for great watching, and I'm not complaining.

[Maky]

Originally Posted by manolin

and yet bernie has been the one person under whom f1's popularity has grown the most. What must be realised that while multiple competitive teams make a lot of sense, nothing like big star power to bring it to newer destinations. EPL benefited because of MAN U, F1 benefited from Ferrari.

There is racing, and then there is business, and in F1, they can't survive without each other. By taking it global, Bernie has made F1 far more sustainable than before.

F1 would not be today if it wasn't for Bernie there is no debating that. But the work he's done to make it the world sport it is today from the EU only it was many years ago has been done purely for self-interest not for the sport. Let's not kid ourselves he only did what he did after he established his Formula One Group, giving 40 something % television revenues to teams, 30 odd to the FIA, and 20'ish% to FOPA (Ecclestone himself!, This was fought fiercely at the time by Ron and Tyrrell).
It did well for viewership but do not forget he only did what he did as a businessman protecting his investment. It is that very selfish attitude that has gotten out of hand today with outrageous demands from him when it comes to F1 hosting fees etc. This is not a sport this is a business more than anything today & you mention F1 is sustainable? Then why have so many teams gone bankrupt in the past couple of years. Where is Minardi? Where is tyrrel? FI was on the bubble till Bernie stepped in I remember reading a couple of months ago.

Originally Posted by ghostrider

I think you're WAY of the mark here. There IS a cap on spending in F1. There IS a cap on testing to make sure that billionaire teams like Ferrari don't get an undue advantage of testing at their own private track.
Smaller teams have become more competitive with measures like these, and they now get much bigger payouts to incentivize their performance to help bankroll them for next year.
What made F1 boring from 2000 - 2004 was Ferrari's unrelenting domination brought on by the perfect combination of a talented driver, a fantastic technical team, and the fact that they had Bridgestone rubber that was tailor-made for them. Their domination had nothing to do with a freeze on engine development and a lack of overtaking - no one was fast enough to overtake them in the first place.



Well said. Bernie-bashing's a popular sport but the fact remains that Fq has flourished like crazy in the last ten years. New venues (most of them not to my liking, though) new fans, more competitive seasons, and more overtaking.
Yes, the drivers need to manage their Pirelli rubber, and the ones that have a smoother driving style will be rewarded. Big deal. All it means is that teams and drivers need to be inventive with their strategy and just because someone's led for most the race doesn't mean he'll be the first one across the line when the flag drops because his last stint may be on a different tyre which will allow him to be caught by the chasing pack. It makes for great watching, and I'm not complaining.

No, I think you may be misinformed on the first point.
Yes there is a cap. A cap which isn't regulated. If the current RRA was regulated i.e. Budget cap was in full effect why would Red Bull have separated from the Formula One Teams Association? For the same reason Ferrari disagreed with any kind of budget cap in their prime. It allowed them leverage against their rivals through their significant financial muscle. Smaller teams are more competitve due to the regulations not changing not because they are given more money. The money they are paid based on constructors position is still a joke.

Additionally, You say that Ferraris domination had nothing to do with engine freeze? Yet don't you think if it wasn't locked that there would have possibly been more competitive teams? Teams that would have gone a different route to compete rather than aero and tyres which at that point Ferrari had mastered?
Also, The rubbish venues you speak of exist for a reason, Because they coughed up more money to fill Bernies coffers than others.

Formula One needs a regulated cap. Not only will such a thing allow mid-fielders to mix it up with the top teams and make it more interesting but also safeguard the future of this sport that will all love. Formula One needs to be owned by the teams not some bloody private equity firm(CVC) & a tyrant that would desire only one thing from it.

You are right on one point though ghost this is Indeed bernie bashing and is completely off-topic from the OP. To both of you, Perhaps this debate better continued over a drink or 5 ; )...

[sharc_biker]

Originally Posted by ghostrider

And why shouldn't they be scaled down to V6s? I've seen several eras of F1 - from V6s to V12s, V10s, the current V8s, and now back to Forced Induction V6s again. Frankly, I'm excited to see what these engines can do. Everyone is already agreed on the fact that the cars will be as fast as they currently are - so there won't be any drop in speed.

I totally agree with you. But in those eras, Formula 2 and GP2 were not very established. But now they are! F1 being the ultimate among the three, GP2 for example should be scaled down to V6s instead of F1.

I know this is Off topic but take the case of MotoGP. They moved on to 1000cc from 800 in 2011. They have categorized themselves which includes Moto2 and Moto3 based mainly upon engine displacements and rider skills.

This is what in my perspective F1 should do

[sharc_biker]

Originally Posted by ghostrider

Are you kidding me??? Do you know anything at all about F1??? Ayrton Senna's three most legendary cars were V6 turbos powered.
1. The iconic Lotus 98T (the black and gold John Players Special) was a Renault Gordini EF15B, 1,492 cc (91.0 cu in), 90° V6, turbo, mid-engine, longitudinally mounted.
2. It's successor, the equally iconic Lotus 99T (yellow camel colors) was the fantastic Honda RA166-E, 1,494 cc (91.2 cu in), 80° V6 engine.
3. And finally, the all conquering Mclaren MP4/4 was perhaps the most legendary V6 powered car of all time. It ran a Honda RA168-E, a 1,494 cc V6 turbo.

Yet again, i agree with you ghostrider that V6s can be awesome too. Especially turbocharged ones. But as i said, F2 came and went in 1985 as Formula 3000 and GP2 wasn't there until 2005.

Senna's Honda powered Mclaren churned out a whopping 1200bhp. Unlike today's V8s or the older V10s which have the 1000bhp barrier. It had a manual transmission and less on board computer systems making an F1 driver's job tougher and more demanding than it is today. It isn't that i am totally against on board electronic driver assist/safety systems. I just said that there should be a proper balance in the driver skill requirement and the electronic aids.

The F1 cars of that era needed more driver attention and skill. Here is what Lewis Hamilton had to say after driving Senna's Mclaren MP4/4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTO8I_jPWXU

[sharc_biker]

Originally Posted by kaushik60

I think you might be a little off the mark here buddy.
In the 90s, F1 was definitely made a little tamer to improve safety of drivers. But what is happening next year is not that.
==================
So, it would be wrong to say that they are diluting the sport. In fact, this is pushing both the engineer and the driver, more to the limit of their skills than before.

My bad. i mentioned only safety.

But instead of F1, GP2 cars must be scaled down to V6s or Formula 2 scaled up to V6s (The fact that all drivers use the same exact car aside). This is what MotoGP did with Moto2 and Moto3. MotoGP is now categorized according to engine displacement and driver proficiency.

You might say that there is more money and publicity involved in F1 than F2 and GP2. And because of this, the engineers would have lesser pressure to develop an advanced V6 in case of F2 and GP2.

F2 and GP2 is also becoming famous by the day like Moto2 and Moto3.
Thus, in my perspective, F1 should stick on to bigger engine displacement and develop them for fuel efficiency by restricting the minimum fuel efficiency to 2-3 + kmpl and allow forced inductions, CAI, Variable geometry/valve timing inlet systems. Engineers will face a bigger challenge then.

[ghostrider]

Originally Posted by sharc_biker

Yet again, i agree with you ghostrider that V6s can be awesome too. Especially turbocharged ones. But as i said, F2 came and went in 1985 as Formula 3000 and GP2 wasn't there until 2005.

Senna's Honda powered Mclaren churned out a whopping 1200bhp. Unlike today's V8s or the older V10s which have the 1000bhp barrier. It had a manual transmission and less on board computer systems making an F1 driver's job tougher and more demanding than it is today. It isn't that i am totally against on board electronic driver assist/safety systems. I just said that there should be a proper balance in the driver skill requirement and the electronic aids.

The F1 cars of that era needed more driver attention and skill.

Well said, but at the end of the day F1 is supposed to push the envelope of what's technically possible. It's supposed to sport sport cutting-edge tech that slowly trickles down to lower formula and eventually to road cars.
F1 needs to be in sync with the times and the entire world is moving to lower capacity engines with forced induction. Turbos are back with a bang, baby.
The days of big-block normally aspirated engines were always going to be numbered. What I'd like to see is go back to the 1200-bhp limit that the cars from the '80s had. Don't allow aero grip to get out of control like it did between 2000-2004 and never, ever go back to grooved tyres.
As long as you do that, you'll still retain the spirit of F1 and ensure that it doesn't become a second-rate formula.

[ghostrider]

Originally Posted by Maky

No, I think you may be misinformed on the first point.
Yes there is a cap. A cap which isn't regulated. If the current RRA was regulated i.e. Budget cap was in full effect why would Red Bull have separated from the Formula One Teams Association? For the same reason Ferrari disagreed with any kind of budget cap in their prime. It allowed them leverage against their rivals through their significant financial muscle. Smaller teams are more competitve due to the regulations not changing not because they are given more money. The money they are paid based on constructors position is still a joke.

Additionally, You say that Ferraris domination had nothing to do with engine freeze? Yet don't you think if it wasn't locked that there would have possibly been more competitive teams? Teams that would have gone a different route to compete rather than aero and tyres which at that point Ferrari had mastered?
Also, The rubbish venues you speak of exist for a reason, Because they coughed up more money to fill Bernies coffers than others.

Formula One needs a regulated cap. Not only will such a thing allow mid-fielders to mix it up with the top teams and make it more interesting but also safeguard the future of this sport that will all love. Formula One needs to be owned by the teams not some bloody private equity firm(CVC) & a tyrant that would desire only one thing from it.

You are right on one point though ghost this is Indeed bernie bashing and is completely off-topic from the OP. To both of you, Perhaps this debate better continued over a drink or 5 ; )...

Fair enough. The RRA is possibly the best situation possible - it would be almost impossible to actually regulate funds down to the last dollar spent because teams would find extremely creative ways to fund their development efforts and keep them off the books.
I remember an article (that was quashed pretty quickly) a couple of years ago which claimed that Ferrari was using so many CFD scientists that it was estimated they were exceeding the RRA by a margin of 60%.

Frankly, I don't care that who owns Formula 1. I don't care about the machinations of FOM, CVC, Bernie, Max, or FOTA. Everyone's out to line their own pockets, and why shouldn't they? As long as I get competitive racing at proper venues like Spa, Silverstone, Monza, Montreal and Albert Park I don't mind.
There will always be crappy venues. Before the current crap venues like Valencia, there was Magny Cours which had one point where you could overtake and was a ginormous snoozefest. Ditto the Hungaroring. That's ok. I can live with that.
I can also live with the occasional season like 2011 where after the first couple of races the WDC is s foregone conclusion. That will always happen, and I will still love F1.

I guess in conclusion I think the State of the Union is actually pretty positive for F1.

Originally Posted by sharc_biker

Yet again, i agree with you ghostrider that V6s can be awesome too. Especially turbocharged ones. But as i said, F2 came and went in 1985 as Formula 3000 and GP2 wasn't there until 2005.

Senna's Honda powered Mclaren churned out a whopping 1200bhp. Unlike today's V8s or the older V10s which have the 1000bhp barrier. It had a manual transmission and less on board computer systems making an F1 driver's job tougher and more demanding than it is today. It isn't that i am totally against on board electronic driver assist/safety systems. I just said that there should be a proper balance in the driver skill requirement and the electronic aids.

The F1 cars of that era needed more driver attention and skill.

Well said, but at the end of the day F1 is supposed to push the envelope of what's technically possible. It's supposed to sport sport cutting-edge tech that slowly trickles down to lower formulae and eventually to road cars.
F1 needs to be in sync with the times and the entire world is moving to lower capacity engines with forced induction. Turbos are back with a bang baby, so the days of big-block normally aspirated engines were always going to be numbered.

What I'd like to see is go back to the 1200-bhp limit that the cars from the '80s had. Don't allow aero grip to get out of control like it did between 2000-2004 and never, ever go back to grooved tyres.
As long as you do that, you'll still retain the spirit of F1 and ensure that it doesn't become a second-rate formula.