Liberty Media buys F1 for $8 billion

[fdcg27]

The old ways of doing things were sustained from the appearance of the first Cooper and Lotus F1 cars up until pretty recently.
The appearance of the Cosworth Ford in the sixties brought an engine with competitive power, decent durability and reasonable cost to all of the mainly Brit independent teams.
Of course Ferrari didn't like these mainly Brit upstarts, since they were beating Ferrari everywhere. Ferrari could afford to spend more of Fiat's money in the Lauda era and came up with some winning cars, although more through careful prep than through technical superiority.
Safety is as much a track thing as it is a matter of the cars themselves. I also wonder whether any current car could survive an entire race on the full 'ring. Doubt it.
Of the drivers I named in the post to which bil replied, only Jim Clark died in a car and that was the result of the failure of the Lotus F2 car he was driving in a just for fun race. Drivers died then and drivers die now. Drivers even die in the large and well protected NASCAR sedans. This is a reality of racing.
Now, I myself really love vintage events and we attend many each year.
Most of modern racing leaves me cold and uninterested.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Drivers died then and drivers die now. Drivers even die in the large and well protected NASCAR sedans. This is a reality of racing.


With the exception of Jules Bianchi, the last F1 death was Senna over 22 years ago. Compare that to the 70's alone, when there were a dozen killed. There is no comparison to the dangers then, compared to the current safety blanket drivers race under. That is the true reality of racing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_fatalities

"Fifteen drivers died in the 1950s; fourteen in the 1960s; twelve in the 1970s; four in the 1980s and two in the 1990s. Following the deaths of Ratzenberger and Senna in 1994, there were no driver fatalities during world championship events for more than 20 years until Jules Bianchi's death in 2015, from injuries sustained during the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix."

 

[fdcg27]

One can't actually draw the conclusion that you've quoted using any consistent application of the data presented in the Wiki article.
For example, if one applies the same gross numbers without qualification to those of the twenty first century as was done for prior periods, one comes to four driver deaths in F1 cars since 2000.
We can conclude that F1 racing has gotten safer for the drivers over the past several decades, but we are looking from a period where drivers raced using no personal protective gear at all and often drove without even a lap strap to full face helmets and fire-resistant coveralls as well as custom molded seats with four point restraints.
Certainly the cars are stronger due to the use of materials unknown in earlier days.
The greatest improvement has probably come from circuit design and barrier construction as well as dedicated professional fire and rescue services.
My point is that earlier cars were neither badly designed and made nor were they in any way flimsy, with the possible exception of a few from a well-known British team.
While F1 deaths are much less common than was the case six decades ago, it ain't just the cars that have made the difference and to conclude otherwise is in error.

 

[billt460]

If you look at early F1 cars, they were death traps waiting to happen. Watch the movie "Grand Prix" with James Garner. Those drivers had no protection. Their heads were higher than the roll bars that were supposed to protect them. It all but looks like the result of a bad joke. When many of the drivers in the 60's and 70's died, their bodies were badly mutilated. François Cevert was almost cut in two when his car hit the Armco. They never bothered to remove his body from the car at the wreck site. They just threw a tarp over the cockpit until they got it back into the garage. The flat bed they had it on was trailing blood down pit road. Insane. Drivers had little to no protection back then. Look at all the crashes today in F1. Most all of them, regardless of how violent, result in the driver walking away. If this would have happened in the 60's, Magnussen would have been dead. Instead he walked away with a sore ankle.

 

[fdcg27]

Like just about everyone else with any interest in racing, I've seen "Grand Prix" at least a couple of times and "Le Mans" as well.
Not sure how a movie reflects the reality of racing, although both Steve McQueen and James Garner had some driving chops, maybe not as good as those of a guy who ran as simply P. Newman.
It isn't just the car you hit something with that matters, it's what you hit and how fast you're going when you hit it that makes all the difference.
Less concrete and Armco and more padding have made all the difference in racing crashes involving fixed trackside features.
The ultimate protection against fatal injury in the earlier era was driver skill and discipline.
A Fangio could drive anything reasonably competitive to a win and could even make up an enormous time deficit after a comically slow pit stop against two good drivers in good cars, as he did in the 1957 German Grand Prix on the full 'ring. He was well into his forties at the time, an old man by today's standards in F1 and he still caught and passed the young and talented Peter Collins and then Mike Hawthorn in their factory team Ferraris. Ferrari must have wished that he had been a little more simpatico with Fangio, who had left for the 1957 season and joined Maserati.
The discipline part comes in when a driver accepts his own limitations and doesn't try to drive over his head.
When drivers try to exceed their abilities, bad things can happen.

 

[Evili]

You know, 8 billion seems like small potatoes in today's world. I would have thought F1 would have been valued at many times that figure.

The Anheuser-Busch InBev acquisition of SabMiller was over 100 billion, wasn't it? And all they do is produce flavored alcoholized water.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The old ways of doing things were sustained from the appearance of the first Cooper and Lotus F1 cars up until pretty recently.

Unfortunately, or not, those days are over. And, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Lauda started as a pay driver, don't forget.

Trying to go back on engines will kill the sport. You'll have enough problems getting anyone to agree on allowing independent engines in at all. It could be done, but it won't be easy, as we've already seen. Rolling the engines back away from hybrids would mean goodnight F1.

There's nothing wrong with the past. However, if you want to see it, and I certainly do, we need Bernie to have an on demand streaming service.

 

[Indydriver]

Originally Posted By: Garak


Trying to go back on engines will kill the sport. You'll have enough problems getting anyone to agree on allowing independent engines in at all. It could be done, but it won't be easy, as we've already seen. Rolling the engines back away from hybrids would mean goodnight F1.


Why so? Do you think F1's hybrid spec sells hybrid cars to the public? You must think the average Prius owner watches Motorsport LOL. Today's F1 engine is needlessly complex which means needlessly expensive. Everyone who has ever heard a NA F1 car was sick when the current turbos showed up. Leave the turbos to Indycar. The high revving NA scream was as much a part of F1 as Monaco. The new owners would thrill everyone if the first thing they did was go back to an NA spec. What would be cool would be to write the rules so that any cylinder count compete.

Also, the current tire spec is a joke. Street cars have better wheels and tires. Allow low profile tires, narrow them up and allow multiple suppliers to compete. Reduce wing and tunnel downforce while skinnying up the tires. That's the key to elevating driver skill to the forefront.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Why so? Do you think F1's hybrid spec sells hybrid cars to the public? You must think the average Prius owner watches Motorsport LOL. Today's F1 engine is needlessly complex which means needlessly expensive. Everyone who has ever heard a NA F1 car was sick when the current turbos showed up. Leave the turbos to Indycar. The high revving NA scream was as much a part of F1 as Monaco. The new owners would thrill everyone if the first thing they did was go back to an NA spec. What would be cool would be to write the rules so that any cylinder count compete.

Also, the current tire spec is a joke. Street cars have better wheels and tires. Allow low profile tires, narrow them up and allow multiple suppliers to compete. Reduce wing and tunnel downforce while skinnying up the tires. That's the key to elevating driver skill to the forefront.


Agree 100%.

 

[Indydriver]

In case anyone has forgotten....glorious!


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qvWxhhi0_yk

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Indydriver
In case anyone has forgotten....glorious!


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qvWxhhi0_yk


A big part of F1 died when that sound went away. Now they sound like a bunch of SUV's merging on the freeway.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Why so? Do you think F1's hybrid spec sells hybrid cars to the public?

It's pretty simple. Mercedes, Honda, and Renault flat out said they'd pull out if the engine specs regress. Ferrari could do the same. You lose four teams and all the works engine suppliers at once, the series is done.

The new "owners" don't even have the power the revert to the old engines if they wanted to. Bernie didn't want the new system in the first place, and he didn't have the clout to prevent it. The new "owners" own marketing rights. Their power over the spec is limited, and their power over the rules more limited yet.

Heck, Ferrari even has a technical veto, and would use it in such a hypothetical scenario.

 

[Indydriver]

Ferrari certainly would not veto a return to NA. And, getting rid of turbos doesn't mean they have to get rid of an electric boost motor. Maybe the hybrid output could be the key offset to a multiple cylinder formula.

I'm watching the tape of Singapore P2 as I write this. The V6 turbos sound sick (old meaning).

You may be right about Liberty's limited power--I haven't read their contract--but good strong sensible leadership based on the best interests of the series and its participants will gain traction in the current void that exists.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Garak
....Mercedes, Honda, and Renault flat out said they'd pull out if the engine specs regress. Ferrari could do the same. You lose four teams and all the works engine suppliers at once, the series is done.


I'm willing if it came to that, they wouldn't. No way. These Europeans always talk like that. Every time you turn around, they're threatening to do this or that. They're basically full of themselves. If they got rid of that whole complex, silly Hybrid system, ditched the turbos, and went back to normally aspirated V-10's, no one would quit. What they would do is save a fortune every year in parts, development, and engineering costs. They just pour millions into that, and for what? They wind up with slower, more complex and expensive cars. These guys aren't masochists. Make their life easier and cheaper, and they'll love it. And so will all the fans. How stupid is it to lose a race because your battery pack was shot? Or your "Kinetic Recovery System" failed? They're going off the deep end with all of this nonsense.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Ferrari certainly would not veto a return to NA. And, getting rid of turbos doesn't mean they have to get rid of an electric boost motor. Maybe the hybrid output could be the key offset to a multiple cylinder formula.

Turbos do give them a lot more options. As for Ferrari using their veto, it would be a rather strategic decision.

Originally Posted By: Indylan
You may be right about Liberty's limited power--I haven't read their contract--but good strong sensible leadership based on the best interests of the series and its participants will gain traction in the current void that exists.

They have no more power than the previous shareholders of FOM did. They essentially bought shares, which changed nothing in the relationship between it and FIA, or FIA and the teams, or the Concorde Agreements. All involved had better pray that Bernie remains for a while and actually brings a replacement up to speed without sabotaging him for entertainment purposes.

Bill: Of course, we have to take threats with a grain of salt. But, we also have to remember that these large corporate entities are, as has been mentioned many times, one board of directors decision away from leaving the sport, just like BMW and Honda did. And they have said several times they're not interested in going back to the older engines. Here, they can justify the R&D costs to shareholders. As for losing a race because your battery pack is shot, it's no different than losing a race because the engine lunched a valve. If the teams wanted the older, less complex engines, they would certainly have them. Bernie didn't want the new system, but obviously got overruled.