[Anonymous]

I had to wonder … a sport that makes mega-billions throughout the worst recession the world has ever seen. Countries clamouring to stage a race. Yet only nine individuals/companies interested in running teams.

Does this mean F1 has failed long-term? Countless well respected teams have fallen by the wayside, yet Bernie treats them with contempt – yet these teams are his lifeblood.

Yes – we need a low cost F1. Yes – it has to be forced through. Yes – we could lose the big teams. But who cares if we lose Red Bull, Merc, even Ferrari? New teams we care about will come through. Jordan started small, but won a legion of fans and won races. Minardi sprung a surprise from time to time and brought a host of new talent in. People still love Arrows, Tyrrell, Brabham and the rest.

What’s the point if we are sitting there watching eight cars go round?! Will Bernie still strut around insulting everyone and claiming it’s everyone else’s fault?

Any thoughts?

[andae23]

In my opinion, the main problem is that Formula 1 is an out-dated concept, and in the last five years reality has finally caught up. Grand Prix racing has always been about the fastest cars being driven as fast as possible to see which driver/car combination is the best. For factory teams it is also a platform to show off their latest developments, while for privateers it was a place to show their creativity – those two things have always gone hand in hand. However, with the FIA narrowing down everything, it seems like these two things can’t go together anymore.

F1 wants to be an entertaining show, but it also wants to be relevant to street cars. As a result, we have a show with heavily-degrading tyres and DRS, but we also have quieter engines and a fuel flow limit. There seems to be no line in F1’s leadership. In my opinion, they should either say “we will be a platform for manufacturers to trial new technology” or they should have the balls to say “who cares about Mercedes and Renault? Let’s ask Cosworth to make V12 engines, because screw you environment”.

OK, so that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but my point is that no one seems to be knowing what they are doing and what they want F1 to be. And what bugs me most about the current state is that we have some incredibly complex technology, but FOM and FIA put in very little effort to promote it and leave everything to the teams.

[PhilEReid]

@andae23

And what bugs me most about the current state is that we have some incredibly complex technology, but FOM and FIA put in very little effort to promote it and leave everything to the teams.

This gets to me as well. I think these are by far some of the most, if not the most technologically advanced F1 cars we’ve ever had, yet you talk to a ‘casual fan’ (I hate using that term), they probably wouldn’t care or take notice which is a shame. And the reason I’d give is because they are happy enough with the racing and the show with the tyres (which I personally also enjoy) and the DRS (which I do not) giving them plenty of overtakes and drama. Currently, F1 seems to be taking a lot of different turns that you’re right, no one seems to know where they want it to go. You get some really great descisions, like these new engines, the reduction of downforce, and soon the potential for wider tyres (all things I consider sporting changes which are good for all), but also introduce DRS, double points and things like that to ‘spice up the show.’ I don’t get it. But then I still absolutely love F1 and found last season one of the most entertaining of all time…

F1’s weird.

[Nick]

@andae23

There seems to be no line in F1’s leadership.

Pretty much this. F1 is going in too many directions, pandering to too many audiences in too many ways while alienating a lot of not only its history, but also other parts of the things it strives to be.

I’d personally say the main problem is that there are too many captains on deck. There are too many (un-united) stakeholders (not to be confused with shareholders). There are too many issues at play for one party to figure out or to address, leading to the recent trend of half-hearted decisions.

I don’t think F1 has failed: Champcar has failed, F2 has failed as they’re gone. F1 does not even have a clear goal they can fail at right now. In my opinion, F1 needs to be a NASCAR-type of organization, with central leadership, but decentralized local leadership; have a committee for lowering entry fees, but make sure their message is actually heard by all of the leaders (and not shunned by FOM, and ending up in the ‘low priority’ folder at the FIA).

It’s too easy to say F1 will be ‘better’ if just one of the issues are fixed and us armchairexperts probably don’t know half about how some issues came to be. It’s easy to blame Bernie for the distribution of FOM money, but Ferrari probably didn’t have to press hard to get more than any other team. Same with circuits, if Bernie says ‘sure, Hockenheim, pay 50% of what’s in your contract’, all other tracks will want the same.

F1 right now is like an old tree ‘blocked’ by new environments both at its roots and on top, but right now it’s being allowed to grow and being cut in random places.. It can be saved, even if there’s 4 Ferrari’s driving around 4 Bahrain GPs, because competition has always appealed to people, it just needs to get with the times AND make up its mind.

[Dan]

I think F1 needs to engage more with the fans around the world by opening up the F1 archives to show new fans the rich history of the sport and just how spectacular some races/ drivers were. I can think of 4 or 5 races that show specular overtaking/ drama but trying to explain this to someone who didn’t see it is very hard with out some visual clues. Even something as simple as having drivers around in organised autograph sessions would help

[Author]

Posts