I'll leave this question open and I want to hear your thoughts.

In the next 5-10 years what do you think will happen to F1?
Will it loose it's glamour and it's prestige?
Can the money flow keep on pumping in even during hard financial times throughout the world?
What has to happen to prevent F1 to fall? Is there a risk?

I could go on for hours with questions but I'd like to hear your comments on this, I myself have theories.

If it weren't for Schumacher, F1 would still be very very disputed and thrilling. As soon as Schumacher retires, F1 will get just as exciting as it once was.

In 5 or 10 years, F1 will still as high-tech as possible, but it will most definately be more exciting, unless another driver as lucky as Schumacher appears.

What about the V6 2.5 litre engine? Will it ever happen?

Honestly I don't want to see the 2.5 liter V6 engine, takes too much away IMO......

The pass of the torch will happen in the next 2-3 years which will transfer the era of Ferrari-Schumacher into something else....what exactly I have no idea. Honestly that's the exciting part, since no one other than Michael possess the same kind of combination in both speed and brainpower. So no one in this new gen of F1 driver will be able to pull the kind of total domination both on track and psychologically on their rival.....so after Michael, it'll be wide open....and manufacturer wise, I can't see a better time than this next 5 years. Toyota will mature, Renault will rise to the top again, Ferrari will maintain their level hopefully, Williams will be strong, and then we might see BAR finally getting some sort of organizational structure done with Dave Richard and Honda, and if the McLaren can get their act together....this will be wide open....

What about the external problems such as broadcasting rights and this entire Kirch Group situation?

not to mention the 1 engine per weekend rule

How will that change the look of F1?
With high reliability engines, will they get adoped to the streets? I think technology within the reliablity area will be pushed further ahead as the cars will loose atleast 100 bhp with this new rule.

Originally posted by Nogger
not to mention the 1 engine per weekend rule

How will that change the look of F1?
With high reliability engines, will they get adoped to the streets? I think technology within the reliablity area will be pushed further ahead as the cars will loose atleast 100 bhp with this new rule.

I think that rule would detract from the point of F1. We're looking for the pinnacle of racing technology here, not reliable engines. The public wants to see the fastest possible cars, this isn't ****ing NASCAR. The less restrictions in F1 the better IMO. 2.5 V6 engines, they're not that ****ing stupid.

I feel that way too, I'm just analysing the possible outcome of such a change.

Originally posted by Nogger
I feel that way too, I'm just analysing the possible outcome of such a change.

Yes, I didn't think you agreed with that either. I think the field would become closer, but still the big budget teams would continue to dominate, just by a slimmer margin.

I think many people brought a very important reason not to use one engine rule. For the fan it'll be bad. Because then all the team will try to minimize their on track time. So you won't see people running during friday practice, or run at a greatly reduce pace to save the engine. And from a fan's point of view, you already paid a whole lot to see a F1 race(and you already don't get to see a whole lot, F1 is the WORST kind of being-there-live motorsports event), and now with that rule minimizing the on track exposure, the race at the track will be even crapier for the fans.....

I think tires should be regulated, I came to see what the manufacturers and drivers could do, not the tires. I know this will never happen because of the huge money involved in the tire aspect of F1.

I'd personally like to see some new teams enter, maybe some from the USA, or Porsche even.

But if you look at the situation realistically, it takes a lot of money to enter an F1 team, and I don't believe Porsche can afford it. I could be wrong, however.

Originally posted by DriverGT
I'd personally like to see some new teams enter, maybe some from the USA, or Porsche even.

But if you look at the situation realistically, it takes a lot of money to enter an F1 team, and I don't believe Porsche can afford it. I could be wrong, however.

Jaguar basically is an American team in many ways. But if you watched the last they talked a lot about how F1 sees getting an American driver as very critical.

What station did you watch it on? I saw it on Speed Channel and as I don't recall them mentioning anything about American Drivers...

GM would be the best condidate I think. Base it from the Northstar V8 and hire the likes of Cosworth and Prodrive to build and develop it. Just like the Cien V12. I would look for new talent that's gone up through the european forumla's. I know of no American's but I'm sure there must be. There's a guy who lives in my town who raced in USF2000 series last year (on SPEEDVISION). He's racing in England now under a former Jaguar outfit. But he's Canadian so...

Originally posted by M Prophet


Jaguar basically is an American team in many ways. But if you watched the last they talked a lot about how F1 sees getting an American driver as very critical.

Jaguar cannot really be consider as an American team, as that it's really only American money, and not everyone will immediately think of Ford when they think Jaguar. And both the drivers and the management are of European nature....

F1 do need an American driver, someone people can root for and follow on.....American people like to have someone that they can relate to, not just some European folks that they've never heard of or don't even know how to read the name for. For now there is very little reason for an average American to wake up early sunday morning to follow F1 when they can get all the American drivers in NASCAR.....

Well from my point of view the f1 is going to go bankroupt because nobody will be interested any more.

well that is my point of view.[comp]

Huh? I doubt that.

Originally posted by Ilovecars
Well from my point of view the f1 is going to go bankroupt because nobody will be interested any more.

well that is my point of view.[comp]


You are referring to the CART and Indycar situation, I think it looks slightly different. F1 IS the real deal, no copy, no substitute, the real thing. F1 is legendary and will stay that way no matter what. (I hope). Don't worry

I'll throw in a suggestion that is sure to bring back passing in F1--ban the wings.

I belive that most top of the line racing series should have as few rules as possible {It has to fit in this box, weigh this much, and use an engine of <blah> displacement, and strong enough to withstand those kinds of impacts}. By banning the wings (not the aerodynamics) corner speeds will go down, braking distance up, acceleration distances go up; all providing more opportunities for passing. If you really want to go all out against aerodynamics you also institute the "convex hull" rule for the underbody of the cars; this prevents difusers, tunnels, venturies,...

Fuel is regulated by BTU content, but any kind of fuel can be used. Cars are alloted the equivalent to 400 gallons of 110 octane gasoline for the entire weekend {practice, qualifying, racing}.

Allow unrestricted wheels, tires, electronics, suspensions, transmissions, communications; since these are useful for road cars.

Originally posted by MitchAlsup
I'll throw in a suggestion that is sure to bring back passing in F1--ban the wings.
If you really want to go all out against aerodynamics you also institute the "convex hull" rule for the underbody of the cars; this prevents difusers, tunnels, venturies,..



If your talking about groundeffects - they have been banned for many years now.

Somehow I don't like the idea of making such a rational change with the wings, also it would be more dangerous as the drivers would reach higher speeds with less downforce.
It all would become like formula ford on steroids. :)

Higher straight speeds--yes; with a corresponding much lower cornering speeds. Anyone old enough to remember the venerable 917Ks at LeMans in the early-mid 1970's. These beasts would hit
250+ on the long front straight. Modern ground effects GTPs only hit mid 230's.

Without wings and underbody aerodynamics, cornering rates would be fundamentally limited by the tire construction and materials (1.5 G) versus todays 4G+ cornering loads. Braking intervals would lengthen simmilarly. The time spent braking could increase by 3X. Time spend accelerating would increase ~1.5X. All of this time and distance increases tha ability of one driver to gain an advantage on another.

Originally posted by MitchAlsup
Higher straight speeds--yes; with a corresponding much lower cornering speeds. Anyone old enough to remember the venerable 917Ks at LeMans in the early-mid 1970's. These beasts would hit
250+ on the long front straight. Modern ground effects GTPs only hit mid 230's.

Without wings and underbody aerodynamics, cornering rates would be fundamentally limited by the tire construction and materials (1.5 G) versus todays 4G+ cornering loads. Braking intervals would lengthen simmilarly. The time spent braking could increase by 3X. Time spend accelerating would increase ~1.5X. All of this time and distance increases tha ability of one driver to gain an advantage on another.

F1 is supposed to be the most high tech racing series in the world. I think bringing down these cornerspeeds and going for speed would kind of bring down its pupose.
Go back ten years in time and then see what made the racing more open. I'm sure there are less rational and complex ways to make F1 fun to watch.
And I don't think there is enough money either at this point for all the "poorer" teams to redesign and produce a totally new car with other technical designs. Alot in an F1 car is effected if wings would be lost - problems may occur in the chassi and most of all brakes.
And as I said - security IS a big issue in this scenario.