Gary Hartstein is clearly a man who has a chip on his shoulder. But it's not hard to see why.

Here, he gives his reasons for why he won't be watching F1 any more...

https://formerf1doc.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/its-not-you-its-me/#like-2491

All valid to my mind, the news that terrestrial tv coverage will end in a couple of years will mean I for one will not be watching / paying the sky pirates.
That's assuming we fans still have a sport worth watching, I thought the likes of Jean Todt would give the sport some badly needed balance / guidance but clearly he seems happy to take the money and not rock the boat.
Sad to think the passion and excitement of F1 will soon be lost.

I realise this wasn't yesterday, but its taken a while to sink in.

The money-obsessed-goblin declared there is no way he'd pay his own cash money to watch F1. Now, I'm perfectly used to Bernie spouting bollocks in pre-season in order to obtain a bit of press coverage (on track sprinkler systems, anyone?) but that one really is bizzare. At the same time as the organisations he represents are charging $1 Billionty to host a race and erecting a global F1 paywall. And the sport then designs *AND RETAINS* the most stupid qualifying system anyone has heard of.

I'm sorry, could someone run that past me again?

Is this actually a project to see how far you can push people before they call time on it? Is it all a massive in-joke at the fans expense? I'm struggling for another answer.

When I was young I used to watch it for the crashes. Fernando's one last week was amazing. A small amount of car remained upside down. He somehow crawled out, got up, walked, and probably wondered if he was still alive when he looked at what he had got out of.

About 10 years ago it was the start that did it for me- particularly the second after the lights went out. Maybe because overtaking was so much harder back then.

My beef is the TV coverage - they don't understand that if people can't watch every race live they will drift away.

It would also be great to get back to cars with 4 wheels at the front, a choice to use turbos or not, maybe a bit of mechanical suction, some diffuser blowing, etc. This rubbish about fuel economy - like we need to be educated - when the F1 circus burns so much energy flying from venue to venue.

I also think the current crop of drivers are doing a lot to help it though a bad time.

Anyway - I agree with all the above comments - bleed it dry now? invest in the future? Bernie's run it up and down a few times.

Reduce aero and increase the size of the rear tyres and reduce the front. That will son man up the drivers.

That's what the fans have been saying for years, though - less aero, more mechanical grip. So what will we get next year? Yet more Aero. It will reduce lap times, and it is true that we all want fast cars. But we want fast cars that race. This will only make it more processional, and mean we rely on the artificial overtaking from DRS and over boost systems even more.

Formula E has the right idea on rules in my view. It's a stock battery, chassis, suspension and aero, helping to control cost and reduce barriers to entry. The design of the power converter (the feed to the motor), motors and transmission are up to the teams. So, some have one motor, some have more. Some have direct drive, some have a gearbox. So there are differences in performance corner to corner and track to track. It seems to work.

The sad irony of a sport featuring the most advanced technology being the most laughably inept at modern marketing/social media is hard not to notice. The savagery with which FOM pursues anyone who posts an unlicenced video (a member of the public on YouTube or the CURRENT WORLD CHAMPION AND MARKETING DREAM on SnapChat), is astonishing. The total lack of understanding that every video clip posted is a free commercial for F1 does make you worry about the pinstripe f*ckwits in charge.

Personally, I'm not against the move to the complex, hybrid power units. As evidenced by Formula E, WEC and others, motorsport must show that it is addressing real-world concerns and develop technologies that will keep car manufacturers interested, otherwise it is simply another example of dinosaurs partying at their own extinction. Getting close to maintaining lap times from the old V8 era, yet using a third less fuel is something F1 should be trumpeting, rather than slagging its own product off in the media. And it clearly does not have to be at the expense of performance.

F1 has also stubbornly ignored the calls from everyone and his dog to remove aero and increase mechanical grip, not least because the quest for more aero lap-time savings costs a fortune in wind-tunnel/CFD time. What was it Colin Chapman used to say? "Simplicate and add lightness" (I know it was Bushnell Stout's, not Chapman's quote originally, Neil). F1 seems to be the antithesis of simplication.

Maybe, possibly, there might come a time when CVC can be displaced by someone who will actually nurture the sport and care for it.

Not holding my breath.

I'm absolutely fine with the hybrid units (although I still marvel that nobody seemed to think about what the current engines would sound like. To channel a very old Coupe-ist, they sound RIDDEN). You are quite right about the efficiency, Jim, but so is Skinflint. You can't pat yourself on the back about 50kg of in-race fuel, and then have hundreds (thousands?) of tons of kit there which you shipped half way round the earth, and which is nothing to do with the racing. F1 should also be making noise about this being the testbed for the hybrid units that your family car will have in 5-10-15 years.

The problem is that whenever a problem, or a liberal interpretation of the rules, comes along the instinct is to make things more complicated. A token system, a byzantine system of grid penalties, tyres that are designed to be rubbish, DRS, limits on how much KERS (or whatever we call it now) you can use, allowing lapped cars to unlap thereby keeping the safety car on track and encouraging slower drivers to drive flat out under safety car conditions, a backwards approach to risk that means wet tyres are pointless, because you have drivers following the safety car into the pits to get intermediates, I could go on.

Colin Chapman only had it half right - his attitude to driver safety was that there are plenty more where that one came from, so he lightened to the point that the cars were lethal - but simplification of rules and decision making would be a step in the right direction. The GPDA are probably right that the current mess of rules are a function of the decision making processes, so that's where to start.

Oh, and CVC will only go away if the money dries up. While F1 is willing to court the paragons of human rights and centres of motorsport fandom that we have on this year's calendar that is not going to happen. Welcome to the European Grand Prix. From Azerbaijan.

When is the WEC on?

Excellent post, Mansilla. And my apologies to Skinflint - I meant to reference his comment about the logistical costs, but mis-attributed it.

The joke about 'road cars' is that they operate in a completely different mode from race cars: absent one or two former FCCUK regulars, they *don't* operate in either of full throttle or full brake, and little in between. Most cars will only benefit from high economy on long constant speed runs, with little braking (for energy recovery) or acceleration (to use that recovered energy), and as such the energy recovery systems have little utility.

I've banged on about too much aero for too long, so I won't repeat myself, but I will not worry about not being able to see F1 after 2017.

Yes, but there are 2 important points about the "road cars" issue:
1/ There is a substantial spin-off from F1 technology that gets adapted to road cars, sometimes not used in the same way and obviously not under the same extreme conditions.
2/ The car-buying public like to believe (or they did, when they could still watch in meaningful numbers) that when they sit in a car branded or powered by the same name as a successful F1 team, a little bit of F1 Magic reflects on them.

Both these factors keep the manufacturers that fund the development in F1, in F1, regardless of the true benefits.

Oh, I agree, Jim - win the race on Sunday, sell more cars on Monday... my point was though that although the cars are being pushed as incredibly efficient - and they are; they're more volumetrically efficient than a turbo diesel - that efficiency *can't* translate to a road car. It's a bit of a large and smelly red herring.

Looks like Alonso is out ...