2024 Formula 1 Season thread

[headlessmike]

Indy isn’t for me and I watch a few types of racing. I stick with F1 very loosely and don’t even watch highlights of every race, but still read up on what is going on and the developments. I enjoy the technology aspect as I’m from an engineering background and F1 is the pinnacle for that. It’s a habit after following it for 35 years even if it’s gone downhill in terms of excitement over the past decade and a half. Nothing beats road racing for me, it’s the last type of pure high speed racing. It’s all on the rider and the courage they have. Much like F1 used to be. The closer they are to death, the higher they feel.

‘Those who risk nothing, do nothing, achieve nothing, become nothing’ DJ.

The technical bit my favorite part about F1 too. It's also why I primarily see F1 as a constructor's sport rather than a driver's sport.

I agree. Not sure how drivers in IndyCar get the air flow through the front helmet vents to stay cool when the cockpit has a full frontal shield? It must be so hot. At least with the halo it is almost invisible when watching the racing.

They pipe air into the helmet a lot like close-cockpit cars use. Not a whole lot of air makes it into an F1 cockpit either, so they both get quite toasty.

ugh.

Strongly Disagree.

That's fine. It's all a matter of personal taste. I don't mind either one really. IndyCar's aeroscreen is actually made by Red Bull and is based on their proposal for an F1 design when the halo was being evaluated. I personally liked the look of the Ferraris that tested different windshield designs. The main problem with the original tested design was the bulbous shape that distorted the driver's view, which the current IndyCar design does away with.

 

[danny842003]

More street races. Because there isnt a purpose built circuit that’s loved by fans in SEA.

 

[iLog.Genius]

The technical bit my favorite part about F1 too. It's also why I primarily see F1 as a constructor's sport rather than a driver's sport.

F1 is and will always be a constructors sport. The focus has strongly been on drivers because of the sudden popularity of F1 and certain fanbases spewing nonsense but F1 will always be a constructors sport first.

 

[CWallace]

More street races. Because there isn't a purpose built circuit that’s loved by fans in SEA.

Building a new purpose-built circuit is just too much of a risk now, so street races are far safer for promoters.

So many billions invested into tracks that only hosted a relative handful of F1 events before being dropped like Korea International Circuit and Buddh International Circuit. And Hanoi Circuit never saw any form of racing, period. Sepang International Circuit had a good run, but it has been off the calendar for 7 years.

 

[danny842003]

Building a new purpose-built circuit is just too much of a risk now, so street races are far safer for promoters.

So many billions invested into tracks that only hosted a relative handful of F1 events before being dropped like Korea International Circuit and Buddh International Circuit. And Hanoi Circuit never saw any form of racing, period. Sepang International Circuit had a good run, but it has been off the calendar for 7 years.

And F1 has boomed in that time. If you want an SEA race why wouldn’t you try and make that fan favourite work. Other than money of course but this is a sport.

 

[headlessmike]

And F1 has boomed in that time. If you want an SEA race why wouldn’t you try and make that fan favourite work. Other than money of course but this is a sport.

The costs of organizing global sporting events has increased a lot too in recent decades to the point where, unless you have existing infrastructure, only countries interested in sports-washing are willing to pay the bill. Just look at events like the Olympics and Fifa World Cup. In motorsports the alternative is to use existing streets.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I’d sooner see Sepang back on the calendar than another dull street circuit. Haven’t we got far too many of those already? We need circuits that are suit for this type of racing, not marketing events to grow tourism at the expense of the sport.

 

[JustinePaula]

I don't think street circuits are per se dull, it is a case of fitting the cars to the right sized circuit, be it street/stadium... For example, Monaco is stupid for F1, pole wins, unless you are a goof and crash.. The chance of 4th getting a win, low.. But some street races, Baku, brilliant, a test... I love Baku, if they had 2 at Baku, and zero in Monaco would be better...

Even a 4th in the US, in say Vancouver or Wash DC, so much better than Monaco.. Or bring Monaco sized cars, 1/2 sized F1..Really who cares if you win in Monaco, it is nothing to be proud of, coming 3rd should be embarrassing for the team..

 

[danny842003]

The costs of organizing global sporting events has increased a lot too in recent decades to the point where, unless you have existing infrastructure, only countries interested in sports-washing are willing to pay the bill. Just look at events like the Olympics and Fifa World Cup. In motorsports the alternative is to use existing streets.

But we have existing infrastructure.
The Olympics are in Paris next month and the only issue with the World Cup is a FIFA imposed rule to alternate continents. Europe would be willing to hold every World Cup if they had the chance.

This is just an example of liberty being overly focussed on the bottom line and not the actual sport. They need to do better to find a balance between the two.

 

[headlessmike]

But we have existing infrastructure.
The Olympics are in Paris next month and the only issue with the World Cup is a FIFA imposed rule to alternate continents. Europe would be willing to hold every World Cup if they had the chance.

This is just an example of liberty being overly focussed on the bottom line and not the actual sport. They need to do better to find a balance between the two.

Sure, but there's some complexity to it. Existing tracks don't consider hosting F1 races worth the price (Sepang, Hockenheim, Nürburgring, Yeongam etc.) and Liberty wants to tap into new markets (which isn't necessarily a bad thing if done right, F1 is a world championship after all). Building new circuits is expensive and risky, so we instead end up with street circuits.

Liberty is an American company and really want to push the sport there. North America is more than twice the size of Europe (albeit with a slightly lower population), so I guess it's reasonable to host as many races there as in Europe if it makes financial sense (this reasoning breaks down obviously if you look at the rest of the world).

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Liberty is an American company and really want to push the sport there. North America is more than twice the size of Europe (albeit with a slightly lower population), so I guess it's reasonable to host as many races there as in Europe if it makes financial sense (this reasoning breaks down obviously if you look at the rest of the world).

Slightly lower population? Just the 413.1M more people in Europe then lol. By event they already have 3 US Grand Prix, increasing it to as many races as in Europe would be ridiculous. The roots for Formula 1 will always be embedded in Europe, thats where its history and base is and Liberty will never change that unless its an entirely new sport with American teams. I think we'd see a breakaway series before that ever happens, not that that would be a bad thing IMO. I supported a breakaway back in 2009 and still think the worst thing teams ever did was remain under FIA govenance.

 

[danny842003]

Sure, but there's some complexity to it. Existing tracks don't consider hosting F1 races worth the price (Sepang, Hockenheim, Nürburgring, Yeongam etc.) and Liberty wants to tap into new markets (which isn't necessarily a bad thing if done right, F1 is a world championship after all). Building new circuits is expensive and risky, so we instead end up with street circuits.

Liberty is an American company and really want to push the sport there. North America is more than twice the size of Europe (albeit with a slightly lower population), so I guess it's reasonable to host as many races there as in Europe if it makes financial sense (this reasoning breaks down obviously if you look at the rest of the world).

of course there’s complexity to it that was my point. Currently liberty aren’t showing any complexity it’s just $$$. That’s not complexity it’s very simple.

By your logic Asia should have about 16 races compared to the 3 in the USA.

 

[headlessmike]

Slightly lower population? Just the 413.1M more people in Europe then lol. By event they already have 3 US Grand Prix, increasing it to as many races as in Europe would be ridiculous. The roots for Formula 1 will always be embedded in Europe, thats where its history and base is and Liberty will never change that unless its an entirely new sport with American teams. I think we'd see a breakaway series before that ever happens, not that that would be a bad thing IMO. I supported a breakaway back in 2009 and still think the worst thing teams ever did was remain under FIA govenance.

The numbers for each vary by definition. The numbers I based my comment on were 600 and 700 million for NA and Europe, respectively, a difference of 15 percent which I would call small.

 

[pachyderm]

YAY MONACO!!

 

[headlessmike]

By your logic Asia should have about 16 races compared to the 3 in the USA.

If the fans are there then why not? I don't want to miss historic tracks entirely, but wouldn't mind more diversity either, e.g. with a rolling set of venues over a cycle of a few years.

 

[pachyderm]

Sure, but there's some complexity to it. Existing tracks don't consider hosting F1 races worth the price (Sepang, Hockenheim, Nürburgring, Yeongam etc.) and Liberty wants to tap into new markets (which isn't necessarily a bad thing if done right, F1 is a world championship after all). Building new circuits is expensive and risky, so we instead end up with street circuits.

Liberty is an American company and really want to push the sport there. North America is more than twice the size of Europe (albeit with a slightly lower population), so I guess it's reasonable to host as many races there as in Europe if it makes financial sense (this reasoning breaks down obviously if you look at the rest of the world).

And it's the worst thing that has happened to F1 outside of driver/spectator/marshal deaths.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

The numbers for each vary by definition. The numbers I based my comment on were 600 and 700 million for NA and Europe, respectively, a difference of 15 percent which I would call small.

Its closer to 23% if the entire North American continent is compared to Europe, so roughly a quarter more people (167.4M). Europe probably needs even more races than it currently has then.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Its closer to 23% if the entire North American continent is compared to Europe, so roughly a quarter more people (167.4M). Europe probably needs even more races than it currently has then.

I don’t think we can really have more races in a season. Not unless we start racing mid week!

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I don’t think we can really have more races in a season. Not unless we start racing mid week!

We've already got too many, if they dropped 5 off the calendar I think drivers and fans who don't spend every weekend with nothing to do would be glad of it.

 

[danny842003]

If the fans are there then why not? I don't want to miss historic tracks entirely, but wouldn't mind more diversity either, e.g. with a rolling set of venues over a cycle of a few years.

More diversity? With more bland soulless street circuits.

 

[headlessmike]

More diversity? With more bland soulless street circuits.

I don’t want that either. But races in more places wouldn’t in itself be a bad thing.

 

[danny842003]

I don’t want that either. But races in more places wouldn’t in itself be a bad thing.

I totally agree but it can’t be at the expense of the sporting challenge/spectacle.

 

[JustinePaula]

The problem is that hosting is expensive, you gain very little from the experience, take soccer, when FIFA choose a host, they take over, all the income goes to FIFA, the host gains very little from the hosting, as a result, you spend and spend to build facilities that soon fall into disrepair, become vandalized, as there is no post event support...

So having a few countries host multiple events makes sense, there is a reason the UK only hosts 1 event, but bizarrely Italy 2... Yet most F1 is based in the UK.. Something just seems odd..

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

The problem is that hosting is expensive, you gain very little from the experience, take soccer, when FIFA choose a host, they take over, all the income goes to FIFA, the host gains very little from the hosting, as a result, you spend and spend to build facilities that soon fall into disrepair, become vandalized, as there is no post event support...

So having a few countries host multiple events makes sense, there is a reason the UK only hosts 1 event, but bizarrely Italy 2... Yet most F1 is based in the UK.. Something just seems odd..

It’s not odd at all. As you say hosting a Grand Prix costs tens of millions and one event is enough in the UK. F1 nearly bankrupted Silverstone with its demands and other facilities just can’t afford it. Brands Hatch and Donnington would be wise never to host another Grand Prix.

 

[danny842003]

It’s not odd at all. As you say hosting a Grand Prix costs tens of millions and one event is enough in the UK. F1 nearly bankrupted Silverstone with its demands and other facilities just can’t afford it. Brands Hatch and Donnington would be wise never to host another Grand Prix.

Imola was able to capitalise on COVID but in 2026 I doubt it will be there.