Comments on: What will be in FOTA’s ‘future of F1’ plan? (Update: announcement in full)

By: Sasquatsch

Sasquatsch — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:01:03 +0000

I agree with everything you say except the standard KERS.

In my opinion there should be as least as possible standard components on a F1 car. I don’t mind a customer KERS, but constructors should be able to use their own KERS. I would like to see for example the flywheel system which Williams is going to use competing with the battery KERS other teams are using. Will it be an advantage or not?

About the points system, I would like to see the 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 or even the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system which is my favourite.

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:27:54 +0000

I've read of the proposal in detail and some of the other interviews the FOTA members have given and I've assembled my thoughts in a new article here: The F1 teams’ plans: what’s good, what’s bad and what’s missing

By: patrickl

patrickl — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:40:19 +0000

Maybe the teams are afraid that the end of refuelling is going to give them problems in the race? They can’t develop their engines anymore (to make them more economical) so maybe they feel they would need to fit a fuel tank that is too big. Reducing the race might solve some engineering problems for them.

By: patrickl

patrickl — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:37:07 +0000

Probably the teams all had to agree and the smaller teams want points too. If only the top 6 get points it becomes less likely for small teams to get a point. So they would vote against it.

By: Damon

Damon — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:34:26 +0000

Unexciting*

By: Rob Wilson

Rob Wilson — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:33:12 +0000

I LIKE THE NEW POINTS SYSTEM, NOT SO KEEN ON THE OTHER IDEAS REALLY…….DONT MAKE THE RACES SHORTER! PLEEEEAAASE!

By: Damon

Damon — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:32:50 +0000

“As if shortening by 20 minutes is going to attract viewers ”

Yeah, I think shortening races would do the opposite. Short races mean less exposure, and therefore less interest and fewer viewers.
Furthermore – a short event is not a ‘big event’, it loses prestige.
A football game lasts 2 hours on tv.
A basketball game – up to 2 hours.
A boxing event – about 3 hours.

On fasts tracks, like Monza, there would be only 1 hour of racing. Sounds very unexctining.

By: Owen

Owen — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:57:28 +0000

Damon and Dan M have picked up on a good issue with the point for pit idea. If there aren’t a heap of complicated conditions then teams might sacrifice their 2nd driver in order to go for the extra constructors point with heaps of pit stops in the last few laps. It would be ridiculous!

As for shortening the race length. Who has suggested that and why? If it comes from this survey then I can’t imagine any of the 25% hardcore fans wanting shorter races. Which means it must have come from the ‘floaters’. As if shortening by 20 minutes is going to attract viewers who might otherwise be watching big brother. We only get 1 race every 2 or 3 weeks. Scrap this idea please!

By: Damon

Damon — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:54:42 +0000

@ Nik
Awesome idea.
They’ve always put a big emphasis on the Monaco GP being so different than other GP’s, that it puts drivers to the test more than other tracks.
Therefore such a different event like a e.g. 4 hour race at, say, Le Mans (!) or an oval-track race that we talked about recently, would be fantastic in that respect as well. Apart from being quite spectacular, obviously.

F1 needs more variability and unique events.
We spoke about that in all the Herman Tilke discussions of recent weeks. But with just 18 or 20 cars in the field… :/

By: DC

DC — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:51:15 +0000

Cutting the length of time of a race probably cuts the costs. Less time on the track means less chance of damage, for instance. Less wear-and-tear on people and equipment. I think this is all about cost-cutting.