Shorter races to be considered as noise fix

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: F1 stakeholders will discuss whether shorter race distances coupled with scrapping fuel flow restrictions could increase engine noise.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

A big month ahead, behind the scenes in Formula 1 (James Allen on F1)

“From a simple raising of the engines’ decibel level, to more radical ideas like shortening the races and abandoning the controversial fuel flow meters, it seems that discussions held so far will channel into a significant meeting of teams, FOM and FIA, a gathering of the F1 Strategy Group to frame a new policy and then possible ratifications of any changes at the next FIA World Motor Sport Council meeting on April 11.”

Renault says F1 noise can’t be changed (Autosport)

Renault head of track operations Remi Taffin: “There’s nothing you can do with exhaust profiling because again you’ve got both exhaust pipes running into the same tailpipe after it has run through the turbo, so it is what it is.”

Monisha Kaltenborn Q&A: Sauber must keep the faith (F1)

“We managed last year to secure our deal with Telmex, which was an important step, and now we are taking it step by step. Not so much is visible now, but you can rest assured that a lot is going on in the background and we will hopefully be able to tell the public soon. I hope it will be an easier year than 2013 was.”

Michael Schumacher latest: Fans complain over German magazine cover that depicts smiling F1 star and wife with ‘AWAKE!’ headline (The Independent)

“A quick flick through the issue promptly revealed that the headline bore no relation to Schumacher at all, but instead to a number of stories about different individuals who had woken up after a coma.”

Spray in Sepang (ESPN)

“Rosberg was his usual exuberant self but I sense there’s a bit of tension brewing between the two drivers. Obviously one has more points than the other and everyone wants to win every race.”

Hansard 1st April 2014

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield, Labour): “The UK, however, is the home of motor sport not only in Formula 1, but in so many other ways. The national and grass roots series are among the building blocks that make our motor sport and performance engineering industries as world-class as they are.”


Comment of the day

Does it matter if F1 cars are six seconds slower than they were nine years ago? Not everyone thinks so:

I don’t care if the lap times are slower.

Drivers fighting their cars is much more entertaining than the previous formula where drivers just put their foot to the floor and they remained glued to the track.
Steven (@Steevkay)

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Jt19 and Shreyas Mohanty!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Mark Webber planted his Red Bull on pole position for the Malaysian Grand Prix with a superb lap using intermediate tyres on a very wet track today in 2010:

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

143 comments on “Shorter races to be considered as noise fix”

  1. And while they are in damage control mode dump the idiotic double points race.

    1. I don’t care what anyone says – if these engines screamed anything like the old V8’s there would be nowhere near as many complaints!

      As much as people say the sound doesn’t matter – IT DOES!

      F1 is an entertainment experience. An experience of glitz, glamor, high speed, the smell of burning rubber, racing fuel, fast cars, pretty girls, overpaid drivers and SCREAMING ENGINES!

      If you’re a true F1 fan, like me, the following video will make you cry – if not, I’m afraid you just don’t get it!

    2. hehe I love that the entire fanbase keeps banging this drum for the deaf ears of the deciders… Never before has such unity been heard of, and yet it doesn’t/won’t make a difference.

      1. I think the problem is that we are complaining on the internet. And they don’t have The Internets in the century that Bernie lives in.

    3. Flying Lobster 27
      3rd April 2014, 12:02

      And while they’re making the rules up as they go along, why not make Melbourne, Sepang and Sakhir double points races? They would, after all, be longer than the rest…

  2. Ben (@scuderia29)
    3rd April 2014, 0:06

    i love that sweeping curve shape in the side of the toro rosso

    1. I don’t get why their livery gets so much stick, their cars always look beautiful to me, especially when the light brings out the bull.

      1. Personally I’ve always found their cars utterly dreary. When you see them as a spec on the track it’s difficult to make out what team they are as the dark color just look dark. Race cars should be sporty looking, which to me means bright colors. Even if the primary color of a livery isn’t bright, at least some accent colors that pop can be nice, which is why I vastly prefer Red Bull’s liveries with the bright yellow. When you see their cars the yellow makes them instantly recognizable from any distance.

      2. Because it looks like a paintjob on a lorry…

      3. The gold and the sponsors logos could have been done better.

      4. Because it’s near enough identical to 2 other cars on the grid.

        1. I think McLaren has the worst livery on track this year, so dark and dull on an overcast day you can’t even notice it.

          1. Toro Rosso isn’t as bad as Mclaren, i think, i don’t get their fascination with the color (or rather non-color) grey. I was so hoping for a Orange Mclaren this year, since they don’t have any title sponsor, I was hoping they would distant themselves from the chrome of Vodafone Mclaren. I hope Honda next year makes them put some color.

  3. F1 should just figure out what it wants to be and go with it. The hell with the fans. You can never please everyone, and a horse designed by a committee is a camel.
    So just let it be. This lobbying, negativity and constant limbo in which F1 finds itself with people wanting to change everything mid-season all the time is really putting me off.

    1. “The hell with fans” is precisely what F1 has been doing for decades now.

      1. Not exactly. Why do you think all the noise is important and why are broadcasters pushing for double points finale? You think they are having this crisis-about-nothing meeting because they don’t care about media pressure?
        F1 should just do away with trying to please everyone. Maybe it will be earning less money, but at least that would bring the costs down.

        1. Wait, so the double-points finale is NOT an example of “the hell with fans” attitude?

          1. @maroonjack It’s more a case of being the wrong answer to a question nobody asked. The teams and the FIA thought it a big problem that the drivers’ title was decided with so much of last season to go, and elected to engineer a situation that made that less likely.

            You can see what they are trying to do – sustain interest by prolonging the championship – but I doubt they anticipated the huge backlash it would receive.

          2. No, quite the opposite – it’s a (very poorly considered) way to apease all those individuals who whine and whinge, saying the championship is boring if it’s wrapped up early. In the same way that DRS is a reaction to fans whinging and moaning that races are processional and that there needs to be more overtaking. They are very poor solutions, undoubtedly, but they are very clearly reactions to the complaints which have been raised by fans over the past couple of decades.

          3. @mazdachris Those individuals who whine about championship wrapping up early are members of FOM. If you want to see what F1 fans think about the double points issue, look here. Again, if that isn’t an example of “the hell with fans” attitude, then I don’t know what is.

            Sure it’s an attempt to increase audience, but not every audience member is a fan. True fans of the sport are a minority and so our opinion is routinely ignored.

          4. @maroonjack – your distinction between true fans and other people isn’t really relevant. FOM want eyeballs on screens, they don’t care whether those eyeballs belong to a person who is a dedicated ‘get up at 3am to watch flyaway races’ type fan or a ‘just tuned in because it’s sunday and there’s nothing else on telly’ type viewer. In fact, it’s the latter group which FOM are concerned with because the former will happily watch regardless – they’re the ones that’ll sit through three hours of looking at a waterlogged racetrack and mechanics making paper rafts in the pitlane while a race is red flagged. You don’t need to worry about them, because right there you have a guaranteed audience. The people you want to attract are the ones who might well switch off the telly and do something else if it’s not exciting, or if the championship is over, or if their favourite driver isn’t winning. Because F1 isn’t a sport, it’s an entertainment product, which means that there are stakeholders who have an expectation that literally every single thing that can be done, will be done to maximise the profits. It’s sad, but that’s the reality of F1.

            However to contend your point, unless lots of members of FOM also happen to be members on F1Fanatic, I can tell you for sure that there are a huge number of people who would readily self-identify as F1 fans who were on this very website whinging and moaning last year about RBR wrapping up championships early, and saying they were going to switch off. It’s those people that this is in response to.

          5. @mazdachris – While I disagree, and think that the double points idea is really a way to line their own pockets, I am willing to concede your point that double points is a reaction to fans getting bored at the end of last season.

            But even if that’s true, it is the most hamfisted way to go about it. It does nothing in the case of a runaway season. If Hamilton or Rosberg were to scamper off into the distance, it would do nothing. If it is a super close season between two or three drivers, then it effectively means nothing. The only way this impacts is if a leading driver gets a penalty, an accident, or a failure in the last race and someone from back in the standings steals the title because of this ridiculous rule. It is a no-win situation.

    2. F1 should figure out what IT wants to be… a horse designed by committee is a camel…

      I hate to break it to you, but F1 is not a person, it is essentially a committee. Or rather it is a committee of committees. Therefore it will always result in camel racing rather than horse racing.

      1. I must say that I dread what they will come up now to “fix” F1 @us_peter, when I read about shortening races to “solve” the noise? How far are these people out of reality. With this kind of thinking we could get anything between 25 extra days of testing, to reproductors with motor noise on the cars/next to the track to allowing DDD again, but now restricted to a certain volume.
        Bernie himself mentioned that live its not as bad as on TV, so just let him turn up the TV volume, or place the mics better/place better mics to capture more of it. That is a fix no one needs to meet about and can be implemented easily enough.

        1. Exactly @bascb. It’s frightening to think what the results will be when they are meeting to ‘fix’ what isn’t broken, while ignoring what actually is broken. Particularly when one of the decision makers at the table is Bernie. He’ll probably suggest amplified speakers be installed on the cars…

    3. GB (@bgp001ruled)
      4th April 2014, 0:31

      Bernie! i’ve told you not to comment on the F1fanatic forum! I’ll fire you! I’ll do it!

  4. Agree with COTD. It’s not the slower lap times that bother me. It’s the fact that they aren’t able to do the lap times they’re capable of for 90% of the race due to having to save fuel.

    1. I am sorry but apart from the refueling years, can you tell me a year where they have not had to try to save fuel during races?
      Last year they were saving fuel and tyres.
      At least they don’t have to worry so much about they tyres thus year, and really i didn’t see that much fuel saving in either of the first two races.

      1. And even when they could refuel they would still try to eke out another lap to try to get the undercut.

        1. Adn ever when they weren’t taking less fuel saves them time overall. Under fueling the cars is old school.

          I fondly remember Brundle explaining how much time each kg of fuel costs them. Then as a kid trying to calculate how fast the cars would go after their next stop.

          In my head it was a professional task that was required of me to ensure the race would be run to plan….. What??

    2. @eamon You and the other fans can blame the fuel saving all you like, but the drivers haven’t been able to go as fast as they’d like for years now. Hello, Pirelli tyres, hello no refuelling. Complain complain complain, yet it’s just a new name for an age-old problem. I hate it when people trot out this line, but drivers have always had to take care of engines, tyres, manage fuel etc. I don’t think there’s ever been a time the drivers have gone 100% for 100% race distance.

      1. as fast as they’d like for years now

        Well, they don’t decrease boost levels nowadays – they did back in the ’80s.

      2. There was one driver who went 100% flat out 100% of time he was behind the wheel. His name was Gilles Villenueve.

        1. Except when he didn’t – you forget that, for example, the conflict between Gilles and Pironi after the 1982 San Marino GP was caused by Gilles having to slow down because he was short of fuel (having pushed the two Renault drivers earlier in the race), whereas Pironi, having saved fuel, didn’t need to back off quite as much as Gilles.

    3. Fuel saving is not an issue – at the maximum it’s slightly more important than in previous years but it was always a factor in F1 since the ban of refuelling, which also has increased overtaking.
      It’s also a straight forward engineering challenge unlike the tires which are too complex to level the playing field.
      All in all I’m pleased with the new formula – the only complaint I’d have is that it spread out the field too much (which was more or less expected), but that will change again once manufacturers get on top of it in the coming seasons.

      1. your onto it TMF,
        the next thing you will see is Merc reducing the amount of fuel they carry because they dont need it all now to complete a race and still win,
        what say the moaners then?
        because as sure as eggs change into chickens Red Bull will be doing the same once they get to a circuit they dont need all that fuel to complete a race,
        the reason is they can go faster at the start and save fuel at the end.
        so i t will be a never ending story of fuel saving regardless.

        1. Fuel saving has always been a part of racing, but it has not always been artificially extended in it’s importance in order to manipulate the show, nor has it always been out of the hands of the driver and strictly in the hands of the pit crew to tell the driver when and where he can and cannot push at which point a button or a switch is pushed and the driver doesn’t have to think about it. Just wait for the next instruction from his crew.

          1. The pit crews were still influential in instructing the drivers when they could and couldn’t push in the past – it was just that, usually, they were pre-agreed plans rather than developed on the fly (quite a few drivers from the 1980’s have mentioned how they would drive to a pre-planned strategy that determined how many laps they could run on certain boost levels).

    4. Williams didn’t even use 100kg in Malaysia, so they aren’t always fuel saving out of necessity, sometimes they are doing it because that is what they think is the fastest way around the circuit.

  5. @COTD – maybe i have a bad memory but i don’t recall drivers going off the track because they were fighting with the cars. And didn’t the teams and committee that made the rules changes know that the cars would sound so terrible? Why are the acting so surprised now?

    1. maybe i have a bad memory but i don’t recall drivers going off the track because they were fighting with the cars.

      In the practice sessions there has been a lot of mistakes made because of drivers fighting the cars.

      In races its less obvious but watching the OnBoards the drivers are fighting the cars a lot more than they did over the past few years.
      Look at Melbourne, Bottas hitting the wall was as a direct result of the back end sliding more because of the increased torque of the new power units. It was something that was happening there all weekend as drivers tried to get the power down.

      I love watching OnBoard shots & always have the OnBoard channel open alongside the main coverage & always go between the various OnBoards we have on Sky now. This year you can really see the drivers fighting the cars way more than I’ve seen for a long while, Its especially obvious as there trying to get the power down & the Turbo/ERS systems kick-in & produce all the torque that you see drivers really having to fight things.

      I’ve put some OnBoards from Melbourne online & still be doing the same for stuff from Sepang tomorrow:

      1. @stefmeister Hey thanks for that, where I live it’s impossible for me to watch something like this. Just hope you don’t get into trouble for this, but keep it up!

      2. Thanks, this is awesome.

      3. I see the cars dancing, I like.

      4. @stefmeister
        TNX. Would it be possible to upload some race onboards from malaysia? Maybe with onboard telemetry?

  6. I can’t imagine that shorter races is actually a viable option for F1. If that were the case then Bernie really would be in breach of contract – shorter races directly affects the TV deals that FOM has in place. He cant sell a 90-100 minute race and then deliver a 60 minute race.

    The only other way around is loosening the restrictions around fuel flow and fuel allowed for an entire race, enabling engines to be revved up to 15,000 or 16,000 rpm.

    1. But that is no solution either, as these engines are built to have optimal power at about 10-12k rpm. Not to mention it opens the gates to things like qualifying engine modes etc.

      1. these engines are built to have optimal power at about 10-12k rpm

        That is what they have been designed for.

        TBH I believe this is why RB & Ferrari are complaining so much: They think it will put them in a better position, as they are playing catch up with Merc.

        I just can’t see how they could do it and maintain any pretence at being a sport (although they are slowly detroying that, anyway). It would be incredibly unfair to Merc and their customers if the rules were changed to bring Renault and Ferrari engines in line with them: You may as well just run a spec series and be done with it!

    2. Also, teams have designed their cars and engines with the race distance in mind. To suddenly change that is hugely unfair, and benefits those with worse durability.

  7. “WHY is F1 the only sport in the world that cannot leave things alone for five minutes? ….And why are these changes never in light of what fans actually want..”

    Any answers?

    1. @aimalkhan
      Because every person wants something else. Just forget about what the fans want and try to figure out for yourself what your sport is supposed to be. That meaning FIA and the teams. Things can’t be left alone for five minutes because moaners are always complaining and spreading negativity, and FIA and teams on the other hand are making knee-jerk reactions to that.

    2. OmarR-Pepper (@)
      3rd April 2014, 2:26

      trotter and @aimalkhan , the difference is that Formula 1 depends on technology, that is always improving, and in safety as well. We can’t ask for a 1950’s-like F1 because we don’t want the accidents’ toll. Other sports also evolve, but the changes in the rules are not so drastic. Soccer now accepts, in some countries, referees consulting replays, while in others they can’t. Volleyball accepts players passing the ball with a kick, and the points system changed to make it faster. But in F1, the problem is that FIA tries to solve problems applying 3 different kinds of medicine at once. There was no overtaking, so they added DRS, fragile tyres and KERS all at once. They try to improve the show, so they change engines, reduce downforce, ERS for KERS (quite good changes) but add a double points finale and keep fragile tyres and DRS. We now know more abbreviations than a kid in a spelling contest. That makes people angry, this isn’t a “moaners will moan” thing.

    3. Simple, F1 is not a sport. It is an entrainment package. The death blow will be if the 2x points creates a paper champion. No body will take that champion seriously as in the eyes of the world he won by foul means. So I hope that someone in the mid-field wins by 1 point. I’ve bought the popcorn.

  8. Just have the teams raise the revs of the engines, and increase the fuel flow. As SkySports has pointed out, the engine/fuel consumption is not really as large an economic cost of the sport compared to the motorhomes, and other expenses teams have. Are they really helping the environment that much by making these changes? Does anyone ever expect F1 to be eco-friendly? Just watch the video of the race. Honestly, the V8 Mercedes safety car sounded better than the F1 car.

    1. @Jason: The 22 cars on the grid are not expected to save a significant amount of fuel. It’s the technology that goes into them that is expected to trickle down to millions of road cars and make a difference. This year’s cars are about 35% more efficient than last year’s. Think about that for a minute. 35%. They use a third less fuel than last year’s cars and are very nearly as fast. And there’s more to come.

      1. Errrrm…….but they are NOT “nearly as fast”.

  9. Good to see the sport can hop to it and fix regulations which people don’t like, such as double points for… I’ll get my coat.

    1. Sad to say, but that had to be said @hairs!

    2. Others regulations weren’t paid for.

  10. The problem is: downforce levels, the overall performance of the car is just meaningless when you need to save the whole thing, fuel and tyres included to make it to the flag and for subsequent races. It doesn’t matter how hard it is to drive, or how fast you go, but if you need to go a lot slower than you could or should, then it’s all boring, the “challenge” isn’t really a challenge…

    1. @fer-no65
      Quite. As people have already mentioned, even endurance racing is more of a sprint than F1 at the minute.

    2. That’s rubbish. The only racing in the world where tyre saving and fuel saving is NOT done to some degree is drag racing.
      Tyre and fuel management is fundamental to every racing category.
      The only person on the track in Malaysia who didn’t have to push to some extent was Hamilton, and really why would he when he needs to run the engine for another 3 races.

      I guess the only way people would be happy would be to have more fuel than required, and tyres that last the entire race distance with no pit stops. (They tried the tyre thing and i didn’t work very well). That then takes any strategy out of the racing… pretty sure the majority of races would be processions from start to finish.

      1. Well…fuel conservation could be taken out of the equation and teams would still want to carry the minimum, as any more would mean unwanted extra weight. So they wouldn’t abuse fuel anyway. But at least they could push assuming they fueled for that.

        Tires don’t either have to last a full race, or be problematic in their behavior (not saying the current ones are problematic) like last year. There are many happy solutions for performance behavior that would require pit stops, but would give the drivers more hot laps within their stint life, and less cliff effect to catch them out before they come in for a new set. More confidence in the tires and less fear of ruining them, even if for 5 or 6 more laps per stint than they do now.

        As @fer-no65 says downforce needs to be kept limited too. They’ve had some taken away…I think they need to take more away and keep it away with enough regs in that aspect that they can’t easily claw it back in fairly short order.

        1. Well…fuel conservation could be taken out of the equation and teams would still want to carry the minimum, as any more would mean unwanted extra weight. So they wouldn’t abuse fuel anyway. But at least they could push assuming they fueled for that.

          Looking at radio transcripts, fuel has not been an issue for the teams, any more than last year. Tyres and preserving the engine have been the most important discussions. Fuel is barely mentioned.

          1. Oh I think fuel is being mentioned a lot. We were shown telemetry during the race of drivers’ percentage of fuel used. Fuel flow sensors and fuel flow has also been a huge topic. Just because in the first few races conservation itself hasn’t so far seemed to be a big concern, doesn’t me we won’t have some races with more delta time running yet.

            @theoddkiwi had suggested ‘the ONLY way people would be happy…’ and I suggest there are other approaches that lie between what we had in the last few years, what we have now, and processions.

      2. Tyre and fuel management is fundamental to every racing category.

        Not quite true. Most club racing -ten or twenty lap races, two or three rounds per weekend – are unconcerned with fuel usage. And not all of them stipulate max tyre usage either. And you know what? They’re exciting!

    3. Right. Because from the start of F1 the likes of Fangio, Moss etc and later Brabham, McLaren, Clark, could go full at it without any thoughts about how to get the thing to the line, right @fer-no65?

      Sorry, but for me getting to the finish, and having your hands full to do so, is also part of great racing. To me it was disappointing when that was NOT the case. Its all about having to choose a way that fits your car, your style and then try whether it works better than other approaches. We need more of that, not less.

      1. @bascb You’re right.

        1. @bascb and @fer-no65 But I’m not sure it is a fair comparison to go back to the 50’s and 60’s to make the point. Back then they were on the best tires available, and the cars were brutal beasts with no downforce, and were unreliable, and far more dangerous, on tracks that had deadly objects to come into contact with if you went off. You as the driver had your hands full all right, and you were taking your life into your own hands. And they were using the best latest greatest technology at the time.

          They know so so much more now, and I take the point of @fer-no65 that we know they could have better tires, and fuel conservation needn’t have extra emphasis put to it just to add to the show, when that could be done by limiting downforce for closer racing, having tires that allow them to push, and I would suggest the cars can be way faster due to their safety now, and that of the tracks.

          In cars that are relatively on rails compared to the 50’s and 6o’s and are super safe and reliable, it is a shame if the drivers are as much there to monitor everything and do as the pit tells them, as they are to occasionally push when given permission. For them to now be slower than 15 years ago as well, to me doesn’t add up to the cars being some great handful compared to what Fangio and Clark had, just because they now have torque and a bit less downforce than last year which they may soon recover anyway.

          Cars being a handful…having to figure out ways to get to the finish…sure I’m all for that…but the way modern F1 now works they’ll be less of a handful soon, and it is the pit crew that decides how to get the car to the finish line moreso than it is the driver.

        2. Hm, @robbie, so what is the point you are making there, i am not sure I understand your post?

          What is the difference between taking off downforce we know they “could” have to making safe and relatively cheap tyres that offer less grip than they could have, making engines less powerfull then they might be or even making teams test less than they could, use less windtunnel/cfd then they could and use less than optimized race strategy (refuelling again would be faster too) than what would be optimal?

          To keep it viable to compete, and interesting to watch, we need to have rules that put limits on what can be used, because nowadays the technology is all there to buy, just depending on how much you are able to spend. But it would really be more of a show of what can be done than a sporting event.

          1. @bascb So fer-no65 opines that it is a shame the challenge to the drivers is lessened when they are limited by the tires and fuel and therefore cannot go as fast as they could or should. And I would add less fast than the very cars they are sitting in could and should be going.
            And less fast than most of the tracks can handle.

            You claim the cars should always be a handful and that getting to the finish should always be a part of great racing. I don’t disagree.

            In the eras that you cite, there was nothing artificially offering a ‘handful’ to the drivers. The cars were a handful because they were, in hindsight, so primitive compared to now.

            The biggest difference in modern F1 is downforce and their addiction to it, which creates the scenario of dirty air handcuffing the car behind, and causing processions. I would reduce downforce even more than they have for this year, and make sure the teams cannot claw that all back in short order. I would make sure they are on proper tires that we know the makers can make so that the drivers have good consistent mechanical grip to take over from the reduced aero grip. I would let them have all the horsepower and/or torque they now have, and even more by getting off the fuel conservation bandwagon to the degree that they have. Teams will still only put in the amount of fuel that will just get them to the finish as they will want to finish but won’t want to carry any extra weight.

            F1 knows what they can do if they want processions…we’ve been there done that, and in fact have just had a couple of pretty processional races as it is. They didn’t just add more downforce and enhance EBD, they’ve curtailed that, which is a good start. Optimal for me would be to continue to curtail the dirty air effect, and give them stable tires and less need to delta-time run for tire and fuel conservation, so that the drivers (not pit crews) can wield that handful of torque, and have grip that comes more from a seat-of-the-pants feel through the tires and their contact to the track than just being pushed massively into the pavement provides.

            I agree we need to have limits to what can be used…I just don’t agree that in the pinnacle of racing those limits should come from the pit crews telling the drivers when and where they can and cannot actually race in the pinnacle of racing, based on fuel and tires. While they’ve got this handful of torque, and somewhat less downforce, it’s a shame that is masked with fuel and tire concerns that are greater than they need be for the pinnacle of racing.

          2. Not sure what to make of it @robbie. On the one hand I understand what you say with the changes you mention, but some of that seems contradictory to me. The only reliable way to get rid of wake is when you define more of the aero parts in the rules and bar teams from developing.

            Big engines are not coming back even with freed up rules, Ferrari stopped their V12 before they had to, because it was heavy, unreliable and far too thirsty. And unless you mandate a minimum of fuel that has to be in the car, teams will always try to under-fuel their cars, as you say, to put as little fuel in as they can get away with (unless you allow refuelling).

            What I perceive from your post as being the biggest issue you have, is that the drivers are helped out on their desicion making by the engineers in the pits a lot. But that doesn’t have much to do with the technicalities of the cars we discussed earlier. Cutting down on that would mean running the cars with less sensors, less data being transferred and even going to extremes like disallowing 2-way radio in the cars.

          3. @bascb In a nutshell, I’m just saying that while I get your reference to how much of a handful the cars were, and how much of the art of F1 in the 50’s and 60’s was in just figuring out how to finish, I think now that they have torque to deal with, and less downforce than last year, it is a shame the drivers have to monitor tires and fuel as much as they do, and can’t just take said torque, and reduced downforce…ie. said ‘handful’ and race with it. It’s more monitoring than it is racing.

            I would prefer to see Monza style wings mandated for all venues so that there is much less dependency on downforce and therefore much less negative effect on the cars once in dirty air. Coupled with good reliable tires that last for a third of the races but not just for 2 useful laps per stint and then back to monitoring them before they fall off a cliff, I think the racing could be closer and said handfuls could be thrilling to watch. Give them the torque, good tires, less downforce, no excessive concerns over fuel, and watch them race by pushing to limits, and there’s your ‘handful’ …rather than having them merely drive, by monitoring systems as dictated by the pits, with the only ‘handful’ being the torque. Less need to monitor tires and fuel equals less need for direction from the pits and more time we spend watching racers racing in the pinnacle of racing.

  11. The length of the races should remain as it is, There’s nothing wrong with how long an F1 races goes on for.

    I don’t even mind Singapore getting right upto the 2 hour limit most years, Just add’s to the challenge & gives us fans more time to watch the cars out on track which is what I like to see more than anything.

    On the sound, Im still not sure things are as bad as a lot of people are going round saying it is. OK there quieter than what we have become used to, But the cars are still fast, The power units still producing a ton of power & the engines still sound like race cars.

    Think people need to calm down & let things play out over the rest of the season. Going around complaining about everything after only 2 races & people in F1 going about changing things based on that will just lead to bad decisions been made.
    Afterall everyone complained after Bahrain 2010 about how the refueling ban & all that had killed the racing & how everything would be boring from now on yet 2010 actually turned into a classic season with plenty of good racing, A close, competitive title fight & a lot more overtaking than we had seen for a while.

  12. They tried the new Formula, and it has not gone exactly as planned. Scrap the whole Formula and go back to last years cars.

    1. @irejag
      Merc would quit altogether if that happened.

      1. And Renault.

        1. maarten.f1 (@)
          3rd April 2014, 8:05

          And most of the grid would be out of money by the end of the season…

    2. Are you Paul Hembery ?

    3. Scrap the whole Formula and go back to last years cars.

      I think you would find, not only many teams just quitting the sport altogether, but many teams suing FOM/FIA. They have poured vast amounts of money into this year’s cars. Do you expect them to just write that off? Plus have to pay for new cars? (They may be able to use some bits of the old cars, but most components would have to be build again, new).

      Also, when do rule changes ever go “exactly to plan”? Things have gone pretty much how they wanted: The cars are producing about the same power as last year, are trickier to drive, have much less downforce, and use a third less fuel. They are slower on a lap at the moment, but that’s mostly down to the reduced downforce, and was expected. They are faster in a straight line.

      OK, the noise is reduced and there has been backlash from that, but it was obvious from the start that the cars would be quieter (to anyone who knows the slightest thing about ICEs). Maybe they are even quieter than expected, but that’s because of how well designed the engines are.

  13. If they want to fix F1, it’s simple.
    Get rid of Fuel restrictions, make 2 compounds of tyres for the year, make them last, but force each team to use both as per now. Stop punishing drivers for failed overtakes and ‘impeding’. Remove restrictions on drivers defending their position. Most importantly, remember that reward often requires risk, allow the drivers to take some.

    1. 2 Compounds of tyres would be horrible. They would be damaged in a couple of laps in Malaysia and in Monaco no one would be getting heat in their tires even in the race.

      1. Read what i said ‘Make them last’ No more deg, just 2 compounds all year.

        1. The trouble is, you cannot have 2 compounds doing that for the whole range of tracks max, they would either be too soft for many or too hard for many and never really be just what you need anywhere.

  14. You know you’ve screwed up when a viable way to improve your product is to provide less of it.

    1. @guelph if that’s not the post of the year, I’ll be surprised.

    2. Jimi (@hendrix666)
      3rd April 2014, 4:09

      Ditto! If they shorten the races it will suck! Look at the times of some of the races from the 70s. I want to see more racing, not less. @guelph nailed it big time! +1000000

      1. Jimi (@hendrix666)
        3rd April 2014, 4:33

        I meant to say 60s. In 1963 for example every race was over 2 hours. We get 1 or maybe 2 a year now, if we are lucky. Shorten it much more and it won’t be worth the effort to watch.

    3. @guelph – Absolutely spot on.

    4. Was that comment of the day, or month, or year?

    5. well said mate

    6. @guelph To be fair i think only Luca Di Montezemelo is saying that so i wouldn’t exactly call it a ‘viable’ option. And he is only saying it because he thinks it will be advantageous for Ferrari. They are discussing lots of options, but i expect (or hope i should say) that there won’t be any knee jerk reactions. After all we’ve only had two races of these regulations, regardless of how much you might have hated them (which i personally didn’t).

    7. Why? Many companies do that to make their product more exclusive and interesting in the eyes of the customers. A good example of that would Ferrari themselves with their road cars.

      On a side note, I remembered that Montezemolo himself interestingly talked about the same thing (shortening races) two years ago:

      Makes you think if Ferrari, once again, has some secret agenda in this. Can’t imagine what that would be though.

      1. I want to agree but I agree with this statement. Look at food – they charge the same price for providing less by cutting back on the size e.g. of a chocolate bar. No one notices. It would probably be the same with F1 if the distance was reduced from 180 miles (300km) to 150 miles (240km). The only difference would be the lack of one pitstop or shorter stint lengths.. they could even bring faster/more degrading tyres and provide more tyre difference to speed up the action then.

        1. So, under this proposal the race length would go from 90 mins (as in the LdM article) to 75 (more Monza 1997).

  15. So let me get this straight, according to Renault the only way to way to solve the biggest problem in F1 right now: engine noise, is to remove the fuel flow limit… and Red Bull is also fighting a case trying to diminish FIA’s authority so that they get rid of the rule, what a coincidence!!! Please Remi don’t insult my intelligence.

    Faulty fuel flow sensors, the need to have louder engines and more “exciting” races, what other excuses can they come up with? F1 is as selfish as it’s ever been, they’re not fooling anyone.

    1. Noise is the biggest problem in F1?

      1. @us_peter Of course not! I was being sarcastic :)
        I just can’t believe that something like engine noise is more important in people’s heads than countless other things that do affect racing itself like tyres, DRS, unlmiited budgets etc

        1. @mantresx … or double points for one of the worst races of the year.

          1. All of that @mantresx, @US_peter. Not to mention the solutions being proposed that are mentioned there only make the dire state of F1 go full rock bottom IMO.

  16. Mark in Florida
    3rd April 2014, 3:00

    What a circus! Formula 1 wants to appear to be modern and cool with their new turbo/mgk power units. But they choke the power with fuel restrictions. Now that the media and some fans hate the car’s sound it’s a crisis. Formula 1 should have stayed with what they do well, all out performance. They should have left the battery powered car’s to the road racers like Audi’s R18 Etron. Trying to be a “Me too” sport isn’t going to work in the long run. People want to look at Formula 1 and see the fastest highest performance car’s on the planet not the quickest golf carts ever made. I do not believe that the rules should be scrapped, that would be unfair to the team’s that have made it work. But at some point they need to get back to what makes F1 great.

    1. Formula 1 should have stayed with what they do well, all out performance… People want to look at Formula 1 and see the fastest highest performance car’s on the planet not the quickest golf carts ever made.

      You do realise that these cars are quicker in a straight line than last year’s? And the main reason they are slower is not because they are “golf carts”, but because they have less downforce?

      These engines are fantastic pieces of engineering, producing pretty much the same power as last year but using a hell of a lot less fuel to do it. This is all out performance (engine wise) in a way which will (and has) attract and keep manufacturers in the sport.

      1. exactly dimouse,
        if people wont to moan then moan about the bloody ugly cars,
        that hideous nose is truly the ugliest thing i have ever seen on a car ever.

      2. Mark in Florida
        5th April 2014, 7:24

        I am not necessarily moaning about the new engines. It’s the way that it’s been done. By taking away the car’s downforce the advantage of the car’s performance has been compromised. The car’s are faster in a straight line simply because they have less down force and a larger rear wing opening. With higher performance tires and down force levels to match the torque output of the new pu we would see true all out performance. These half steps are making F1 seem like a Me to sport.

  17. I can’t believe that with all of the amazing new technical aspects of the cars, people are talking about the level of noise. Reminds me of that saying “Don’t throw pearls in front of the pigs”. Which means, don’t bother producing something amazing for those who don’t have a capacity to appreciate it. Sure enough, that seems to be the case. None of the great new tech features is getting some decent talk and explanation to those who might not understand it fully, but by all means, rubbish the sport as much as you can regarding things that are no brainer to make. Everyone can make loud engine or fuel the car and make it just floor it and go around. But obviously not many can make an engine that we have in F1 at the moment. Power to fuel and rpm ratio is absolutely amazing.

    Sadly, people just want to watch the same thing over and over again, and to make it worst, every one of you wants to watch a different thing over and over again. So why should F1 listen to any one particular. It’s just common sense that not everyone can be made happy.

    1. I can’t believe that with all of the amazing new technical aspects of the cars, people are talking about the level of noise.


      Everyone can make loud engine

      Just look at all the 1l Saxos with a “performance” exhaust (which actually reduces power output, but “sounds cool”).

  18. Just remove the bl**dy RPM limit if you want more noise.

    Anyway, just wondering, were the cars louder back in the ’80s?

  19. I don’t think races should be shortened. Did drivers push so hard in the ’80s that they never decreased their boost levels?

    And had the people in F1 been in 1981 what they are today, what kind of discussion would’ve taken place after the Spanish GP?

    And, looking at how it actually turned out, nothing was wrong with Mr. Villeneuve slowing the race down and making it pretty boring, though that doesn’t stop Jarama from being dangerously narrow to the point it got dropped after that.

  20. Shorter races to be considered as noise fix

    My reaction to this was quite simply: “Noooooooooooooo!”

  21. Shorter races to be considered as noise fix

    In other news, foot amputation was used as a solution for fixing a broken toe

  22. @keithcollantine I think the shorter races was suggested to “fix” the fact that races are “too boring” (as in processional), not necessarily the engine noise.

  23. ‘Shorter races to be considered as noise fix’? Is it that bad? That no noise is better than low noise? :-D

  24. Perhaps I already posted something similar some time ago: I think that races shouldn’t be shorter, but they should be longer. With laptimes having gone down over the years, the races have become shorter. Monza in 80 minutes, many others finished in 90 minutes. Why not add 15 to 20 km to the minimum race distance, save Monaco, to have races of an hour and 45 minutes or more, again?

  25. David (@mansellsmoustache)
    3rd April 2014, 7:32

    Tell me this is an April Fool’s joke that got stuck in somebody’s outbox?

    Shortening the Grand Prix distance to change the engine sound? One of those is rather fundamental to what a Grand Prix means, the other an annoyance. Have those in charge totally lost the plot?

    1. You ask if those in charge have totally lost the plot. That assumes that-
      A) There are people in charge
      B) That there is an overall plot
      I do not see any evidence in support of A or B.

      1. nice ;)

        Although i think there is some evidence for A). If there wasn’t people in charge, there wouldn’t be new rules appearing out of nowhere between seasons and being written into the rules with no heads up, let alone a consultation, with the fans. i.e double points.

  26. For more noise teams can just mount loudspeakers on the cars.

    This whole noise thing is just childish really.

    1. Just like an ice cream van. Each driver could have his own theme tune or ring tone.

      1. Seb can have crazy frog since he and his engineer seem so keen on it ;)

  27. Can’t we just leave F1 alone for a moment? We’ve just had the biggest rule change in 20 years and now they want to change the rules again? Let’s see the whole 2014 before speaking about changing the rules again.

  28. Remove the fuel flow restriction, leaving only the 100kg for the race rule.
    Don’t shorten the races, that is one of the things that has remained unchanged over the years.
    Allow twin turbo configurations in the rules, allow the teams to reintroduce dual exhaust exits with short exhaust lengths, although there will still need to be restrictions to prevent blown diffusers. Some engine manufacturers may opt to continue using a single turbo for packaging reasons.
    De-restrict engine RPM, they are already able to build engines that spin at 20,000rpm, surely with a lower capacity (less rotating mass) they would easily reach that.

    While you may not get back to the same noise levels (due to smaller engines, turbo acting as a muffler) they should become significantly louder and sound more highly strung.

  29. What a fantastic idea! Not only do we already have the amazing double points rule but now but they’re considering shortening races to fix a problem that isn’t really a problem. Tell you what, while they’re at they should make the races half distance and instead have two over a weekend, with the grid for the second being a reverse of the result of the first! That’ll improve the spectacle no end!

    Please note the above is sarcasm.

  30. Am I the only one who found Remi Taffin’s imagery in the Autosport article a little disturbing?

    The other item is the turbo. You put one thing through the path of the exhaust gases, which is like if you would put a pillow on someone’s face. It acts as a muffler.

    I wonder who he imagines silencing with a pillow?

  31. @keithcollantine Isn’t the title of this Round-Up misleading? The Shorter Races aren’t a solution to the noise, it’s the fuel flow.

    1. shorter races mean they could run at higher revs/burn more fuel

  32. Shorter races ?!?!? Woooooow, things are getting worse and worse !

  33. OMG, in what F1 got in to! Bad rules, but worst, they insist in talking publicly about how to fix them.
    I can’t say what is best or not for stockholders, but I’m sure that for me, as a fan, the fuel control rule is rubbish, the double-point last race is also rubbish, and the sound of the engines is rubbish.

    As for the engine sound, why don’t they talk to DTM? Have you heard the sound of their motors for 2014?

    1. @yes-master

      The fuel control rules (by which I assume you mean the fuel flow rate limit) is essential to limit the power output of turbo engines. The double points rule is retarded, but the cars sound amazing.

      Am I the only one who is capable of appreciating a sound for more than just its volume? The new engines are cutting edge technology, that produce more power than the old ones. They have a voice, rather than just a scream, and I find them a pleasure to listen to.

      As someone with damaged hearing from various types of engines over the years, I promise you there’s nothing good about an engine being loud.

      I’ve heard that many people (quite sensibly) wear ear plugs while attending a Grand Prix. Hey, here’s an idea for those complaining they’re too quiet. Take them out.

  34. I hate this knee-jerk reaction to things in F1. The season has started, the rules are fixed and there should be no discussion about changes until 2015 earliest and ideally later to give the teams a chance to plan for them. Double points, DRS, fuel levels, fuel flow – whether you like or loathe these elements none of these things should now be touched this year as changing any one of them will lead to an advantage/disadvantage and worse than any of these individual issues to me is the prospect of the championship being manipulated.

    Any changes should be left for another season when the impact of the change is less clear in terms of individual gains and losses and ideally at least a couple of seasons ahead where it relates to technical changes to the car/engine design. It also avoids panic over ridiculous issues such as engine noise which raises its head whenever the engine formula is changed and then quietly falls away over time. I remember the fuss over how bad the V8 engines sounded after the V10 switch and yet there now seem to be people queuing up to say how great teh V8 engines sounded – complete hypocrisy!

    1. @jerseyf1 I don’t entirely disagree with you, however, I wonder if they are that concerned about ratings that they already feel they CAN’T wait until next year to amend some current rules and regs.

      And while I’m not whatsoever bent out of shape about the current sound, I do acknowledge in fairness that the switch from 12’s to 10’s to 8’s still had loud screaming cars even if a slightly different scream. They just don’t scream anymore, and to many that is not right. I would simply mic the cars and tracks better for the TV audience. They still sound high tech…and different…and new. But that’s me, and I cannot at this point determine if, and how much, the quieter engines are negatively affecting the ratings, which is of course the main concern to FIA and FOM and the teams’ sponsors.

  35. “I hate this knee-jerk reaction to things in F1”

    Just before i read this, i read on autosport that ecclestone/montezemlo etc are meeting to discuss what could be done about the ‘specticle’ of F1. Seriously? one race and its like oh nozzz criziz meeetinggg!!

    This is whats wrong with F1. People ******* with it because there is one race that isnt a 10 out of 10 on the excitment scale. If you want F1 to be close racing from lights to flag every race without fail, make it a single spec series where you cant develope the cars. otherwise, STOP ******* MOANING.

  36. I have an idea, why don’t they just speed up the TV coverage? that will produce shorter races, faster laps and a higher pitched engine note similar to last years. Everybody wins…

    1. And time for even more commercials.

    2. @lemon LOL…Brilliant.

  37. well reading this thread right through has given me heart now,
    the last couple of threads on this site had me wondering if i was the only one standing up for the sport but now i see more and more coming out of the woodwork and supporting the new format,
    that pack of moaners that attacked this site with no understanding at all of how F1 works,
    is this the way of the future?
    the young are so quick to put anything or anyone down these days, it makes no sense,
    things need to be given a chance to iron out there problems and F1 teams need time to catch up to one another.
    its like people are loaded up on R/B drink and over reacting to everything they see because their tean is not at the front at the moment.

  38. Trade 10-15 laps off the end of the race in order to have cars gain an additional 5000rpm? I don’t know what you’re all moaning about I’d take that in a heartbeat, I detest fuelsaving F1!

    1. I detest fuelsaving F1!

      Then you detest F1. Fuel saving has always been a big part of F1, even when refuelling was allowed.

      1. yes , shorten the races to avoid fuel saving
        the teams want to plot the fastest way to the finish , won’t they …and so they will start with a reduced fuel load and carry on fuel saving…just like they always did ; the great champions were always the ones who were also the best at fuel usage and tyre usage …what a coincidence

  39. There is no problem with the noise. Regarding the volume, the cars are now still able to cause pain and temporary hearing damage at a spectator’s range. What do people want? And on TV, you can’t tell what the volume is. Regarding the quality of sound, there is nothing magic about the sound of normally aspirated v8 as standing for Powerful Engine. In fact, a true fan may consider that the high pitched sound of the engine signaled that this was a fundamentally low-tech motor that produced power primarily by engine speed, because it lacks torque. An F1 V8 had the torque of a sporty road car. And Look at road cars, to which F1 must relate at some level. Turbos and energy recovery are now the standard, even for supercars. From a McLaren P1 to a BMW M3, modern performance road cars are using sophisticated turbo and/or energy recovery systems. Getting power by revving a NA engine to the threshold of failure of reciprocating parts is old hat. Let’s live in the present now. F1 is not to enshrine cliches about automobile performance and technology. It is supposed to set the standards. Finally, with really sophisticated energy recovery, F1 is doing that, or at least joining prototypes on the forefront. The old KERS was kind of a gesture toward modernity, but not the real thing.

    As for the show, let’s be honest, the only reason RBR and Ferrari are mad is because their engines underperform. They want to shorten the races….because they use too much fuel. Boo hoo. It’s like a soccer team saying the game is too long because their players are out of shape. Get on the dyno and do some work.

  40. If the problem is points, the scoring of them and allowing one driver to collect too huge of a percentage too soon, I offer the solution of more point scoring chances.

    5 points for the fastest lap of the race will have teams going after something in the backfield. Even stresses the leader who might be trying to conserve the car with a comfortable lead.

    2 points for P1 and 1 point for P2 in every Quali session give the teams something to shoot for on Saturday, several bites at the cherry and is a chance to gain points in conditions other than race day (Hulk’s P1 in the rain).

    Getting a bit nutty here, but how about deducting(or adding) a point for every place lost(or gained) from start position over the course of the race.

    Surely, the quantities should be balanced to reward the greater portion of points for the activity that is more difficult. Im no F1 insider, but if I can come up with this, I dont see why others in FIA, and FOM cant do the same…

    Every year, there are several teams that will NEVER be on the podium nor score any points at all. From the perspective of the championship(s) they have ZERO impact except to perhaps slow the leaders while they are being lapped. By offering more opportunities to score points, their impact on the championship becomes substantial and to me, thrilling.

  41. I think the there are more restriction than racing.

  42. if you are not happy with the way F1 is panning out this year i suggest you go watch Honda Mower racing,
    they have plenty of noise plenty of speed lots of over taking open cockpit so drivers can get killed,
    i am sure its more to your liking,
    plus they can still cut grass as they go without saving fuel,

Comments are closed.