Jeremy Clarkson has a message for F1’s new owners

24

The Drivetribe’s Jeremy Clarkson has a message for Formula 1’s new owners, Liberty Media. 

You can check out our Tribe on Drivetribe right here.

Clarkson on Drivetribe:

24
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
Photo and Image Files
 
 
 
Audio and Video Files
 
 
 
Other File Types
 
 
 
3 Comment threads
21 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
MIESalvu BorglongshotCarlrizzior Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jason Smith
Guest
Jason Smith

Couldn’t agree more! I’ve said it before, get the eyes looking back at the sport and the sponsorship dollars will return. There are some things that could be done to make payouts more equitable (which I had some ideas on in the standardized parts comments) which, combined with increased sponsorship, could make all but the worst managed teams viable.

rizzior
Guest
rizzior

For once in my life i can agree with Clarkson. Bernie should be canned a long time ago. lets hope that the new owners think smart in regards to Competition. Think Indycars, think Nascar. no one Team should have a monopoly on Winning. how the hell can one Team Dominate for so long, Ferrari, Red Bull, now Mercedes, well why should other teams show up on Fridays. In Indycar the Chevys might have more Horsepower than the Honda’s but in the race there are different Winners from Different Teams, Same in Nascar. Hendricks Drivers might have the best Equipment but… Read more »

Carl
Guest
Carl

Multiple world champions and legends in the sport fail even to qualify solely because of the equipment and “regulations”.
Formula 1 needs big Changes if it want to be even a SPORT. As it is now, the driver with best equipment becomes the “champion”.

longshot
Guest
longshot

From my understanding, and as I don’t live in the States I could be off the racing line here in which case I invite you to correct me, Nascar is rapidly losing audience due in large part to introducing too many gimmicky rules in order to manufacture “excitement”, the very thing Clarkson is calling for, and also the type of thing that Bernie had a penchant for wanting to introduce. So in my view he’s not absolutely correct. Its not all about the excitement, as that should come about naturally as a result of getting the core product, the racing,… Read more »

Jason Smith
Guest
Jason Smith

You’re right about NASCAR and it strangling itself with contrivances to “spice up the show” but they’ve swung to the opposite end of the spectrum from F1. I agree on most of your points. I think F1 needs to embrace digital distribution through sites like YouTube for past races. It has to be thought of as an investment instead of a lost revenue stream. Who knows how many people who have a passing interest now might become true fans if they could watch some of the classic races we can only hear about. After all, if you can get the… Read more »

longshot
Guest
longshot

Good points Jason, and yes I agree that cost caps are difficult. They have the greatest influence when it comes to chassis design, suspension innovation and of course aero – teams like Mercedes and RBR can throw gazillions of dollars at those things, and provided they don’t find a way to screw it up, that gives them a huge advantage over teams with lesser resources. I’m not saying that F1 should be forcibly impoverished but there has to be a limit somewhere. And yes I think the current engines could sound much better at a higher RPM, though I’m not… Read more »

Salvu Borg
Guest
Salvu Borg

Re the sound of an engine, a forced induction (turbocharged) engine the turbocharger is in itself a silencer sort off. Can never match the sound of a NA ENGINE.
Cost gap/s and formula one just doesn’t go together. formula one is not meant for those that cannot afford it.

longshot
Guest
longshot

> Cost gap/s and formula one just doesn’t go together. formula one is not meant for those that cannot afford it. F1 has always tried to manage costs, athough with minimal success in many cases. For example, the ban on beryllium (which really upset Ron Dennis) simply led to a more expensive search for other materials that could do the same thing. Testing, Wind tunnel and CFD usage have all been greatly reduced to save costs, and the ill-conceived 2014 engine tokens along with the max-engines-per-season rule were also intended as cost saving measures. If the cost isn’t reined in,… Read more »

Salvu Borg
Guest
Salvu Borg

Yes, cost gap/s and formula 1 just doesn’t go together. formula 1 is not meant for those that cannot afford it. “the ban on beryllium (pistons) which really upset Ron Dennis simply led to a more expensive search for other materials”. can you please tell me what “other material/s” are F1 engine makers researching/looking for/using other than those specified by the FIA rules? (only aluminum and iron alloys are allowed) except for con-rods and valve seats. Now some notes about beryllium pistons and the use of beryllium alloys and also titanium as are permitted to be used in F1 which… Read more »

Jason Smith
Guest
Jason Smith

While I didn’t mention sponsorship money in my examples (mainly because it is such a wide variable), it is something I had in mind. I’m OK with teams getting to use whatever sponsorship money they can get and, to a degree, I think sponsorship money begets sponsorship money (ie, my market competitor is spending money in F1, I’d better spend money in F1). That’s where the real pay benefit for success should come from.

Jason Smith
Guest
Jason Smith

On the engines, I hadn’t considered the design differences between a 9,000 rpm engine and a 15,000 rpm engine (I chalk it up to being late when I wrote my reply). I just kind of assumed they were capable of 15,000 rpm but were limited down by fuel constraints, I realize how ridiculous that sounds now. I do still hope that with the increased weight and aero resistance the engines take-on a different exhaust note under the new higher engine loads (a guy can always hope). That being said, Salvu was right in the silencing effect of a turbo. I… Read more »

longshot
Guest
longshot

Yes, I’m sure the day’s coming when all we’ll hear is the (fingernails-on-blackboard) transmission whine and the squeal of rubber on asphalt. Just like Formula E.

At that point I expect an extra 10kg to be added to the cars in the form of an artificial sound generator & high volume speakers ;)

Jason Smith
Guest
Jason Smith

Quiet, Jean Todt and the rest of the FIA might hear you!

Salvu Borg
Guest
Salvu Borg

“But were limited down by fuel constraints”. Yes, the max power speed of the engine is limited “dawn” by max fuel flow. these engines cannot produce additional/any more power above 10500RPM, because that is the max RPM at which max fuel flow is allowed. BUT TO ELEMINATE ANY MISUNDERSTANDING:. (1) The first set of rules for the 1.6L TURBO stated, 100kg load of fuel for race duration, 100gk fuel flow rate maximum, and an engine RPM maximum of 12000RPM. (2) But on 30 June 2011 the projected 12000RPM maximum limit was upped to 15000RPM, and later still the max fuel… Read more »

MIE
Editor

Allowing the engines to run up to 15,000rpm is to compensate for the fact that the gear ratios are fixed for the season. Given that even at the circuit with the slowest top speed (Monaco) the cars are using eighth gear, there needs to be headroom for the circuit with the highest top speed (Baku).

Salvu Borg
Guest
Salvu Borg

Running the engine much above maximum power speed apart from what is called “fixed red line” which is used for up-shifts, will be counter productive to the efficiency of the power unit. so they do not use or run the engine at those RPM’S.
A note about fixed red-line/designed maximum RPM.
a NA engine will always have a fixed red-line/designed max RPM OF 500 RPM higher than the max power speed, These torbo engines has about 1000 RPM fixed red-line/designed max RPM above the max power speed.

MIE
Editor

However Vaterri Bottas recorded the fastest speed for an F1 car in 2016 in qualifying at Baku of 378 kph. That is 30% faster than his speed through the speed trap at Monaco (295.4), and the on-board graphics were showing that the cars were getting into eighth gear at Monaco. As the gear ratios are fixed, this means that the engine was spinning 30% faster at Baku than at Monaco (so over 3000 rpm faster). This is not the most efficient way to run the engines, but it is forced upon the teams by having fixed gear ratios for the… Read more »

Salvu Borg
Guest
Salvu Borg

As I have explained, the maximum power speed of these present PU’S is 10500RPM, above which RPM no more power is possible to be produced, As air alone less the proportional fuel flow will not and cannot produce any addition power.
Yes

MIE
Editor

A low drag configuration doesn’t change the gear ratio though. The engine will be running at much higher speeds at the faster tracks.

Salvu Borg
Guest
Salvu Borg

There is nothing to gain and all to lose by running the engine 3000RPM above the max power speed.
Once again, They don’t run the engine at 15000RPM.
The bulk in the difference in top speed is Aero configuration.

MIE
Editor

What they gain is about 80 kph.

Salvu Borg
Guest
Salvu Borg

The bulk of that will be all down to aero configuration in use. And once again, THEY DONT RUN THE ENGINE AT 15K RPM, BECAUSE DOING SO THEY HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN BUT A LOT TO LOSE.

Jason Smith
Guest
Jason Smith

I’m not sure if you or Salvu have listened to the latest podcast, but we collectively got Post of the Week so good work on the decorum and civility. Now that that’s out of the way, you’re both imbeciles and here’s why…

Just kidding, great talking to you both about this!

Jason Smith
Guest
Jason Smith

And how could I forget you too MIE!