2015 - Three car teams?
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
One way to lower costs is honing restrictions. Limit the aerodynamics more, so cutting the costs of development and wind tunnel work. Limit suspension design. Have stricter arrangements of ancillaries, drivetrain, engine size, that sort of thing. Not so far as to make it a one make series but just enough to cuts costs for those starting, but they could still make midfield. The teams will still experiment to try and get an edge but the advantage they might get will be lower. A fraction of a percent.
Engine must be a 90 degree V6 of 1590-1600cc with a bore of 80mm, max fuel rate 100kg/hr. Rev limit 15,000rpm. 2 inlet and 2 exhaust valves per cylinder. Crank must be on the car centre line and 90mm above the reference plane (the floor). Must weigh at least 145kg. Even the studs that mount it to the tub and gearbox are specified, lots of other rules on the materials used, how the ancillaries are driven, how the air enters the engine even.. pages of rules that must be adhered to.
I don't think you can really get too more prescriptive with the regulations regarding engines.
Likewise there is a stack of regulation around the aerodynamics, even to limiting the number of clock cycles used in computing CFD models, wind tunnel use is also restricted.
If you become even stricter its even less likely smaller teams can build a competitive car.
The tighter the regulations are the more you are in to diminishing returns - for example if you stick a wing on to a car that doesn't have one, you increase downforce massively. Pretty cheap to do, not much R&D needed.
Then the regulations demand I reduce the size of the wing, so to regain the lost downforce I pay a bit more attention to the shape of the aerofoil - I need to do some R&D to determine what will work best, probably doubles the original R&D budget.
Regulations tighten up again, size of the wing is reduced, rules on how the wing is mounted and a deflection test are added. This gives me some real challenges, my R&D budget is now four times what it was. I have to experiment with split level wings to regain the downforce. I can't test the car, because testing is all but banned, so I have to find other ways of verifying my designs.
Repeat this until I'm in a situation where I've bought a scale wind tunnel, an autoclave and a CFD modelling system. I've employed a bunch of people to design me the best wing within the regulations. They are looking for a 1 or 2% improvement and its costing me £100,000, My first wing (now illegal) cost me £100 and gave me 80% improvement.
This is where F1 is now, huge budgets, tiny gains. Teams (who have the finances) spend massive amounts for that little edge over the competition.
The big problem is that its going to be very hard to stop this level of spending, even if regulations were relaxed. If anything spending might increase as the "free hand" means there could be more potential paths of development.
I don't know what the answer is to be honest. Cost caps are too easy to work around, unless someone spends a massive amount of time and money on audits. The level of spending that some teams are accustomed to would be maintained if regulations were loosened. If regulations are tightened costs will just increase.
If change is going to happen everyone needs to do their bit. FOM could share prize money more equally, teams could stop squabbling between themselves and think about the wisder picture than trying to get one over everyone else. The FIA could work with teams to remove any regulations that are particularly expensive but have little impact on actual racing.
Maybe an independent body needs to do a study and come up with some recommendations - I bet if you left people like Brawn and Head could find some effective changes to actually reduce costs. Whats Pescarolo up to now? he may well have some good input too.
Edited by Crafty_ on Sunday 26th October 17:00
Crafty_ said:
Derek Smith said:
One way to lower costs is honing restrictions. Limit the aerodynamics more, so cutting the costs of development and wind tunnel work. Limit suspension design. Have stricter arrangements of ancillaries, drivetrain, engine size, that sort of thing. Not so far as to make it a one make series but just enough to cuts costs for those starting, but they could still make midfield. The teams will still experiment to try and get an edge but the advantage they might get will be lower. A fraction of a percent.
Engine must be a 90 degree V6 of 1590-1600cc with a bore of 80mm, max fuel rate 100kg/hr. Rev limit 150,000rpm. 2 inlet and 2 exhaust valves per cylinder. Crank must be on the car centre line and 90mm above the reference plane (the floor). Must weigh at least 145kg. Even the studs that mount it to the tub and gearbox are specified, lots of other rules on the materials used, how the ancillaries are driven, how the air enters the engine even.. pages of rules that must be adhered to.
I don't think you can really get too more prescriptive with the regulations regarding engines.
Likewise there is a stack of regulation around the aerodynamics, even to limiting the number of clock cycles used in computing CFD models, wind tunnel use is also restricted.
If you become even stricter its even less likely smaller teams can build a competitive car.
The tighter the regulations are the more you are in to diminishing returns - for example if you stick a wing on to a car that doesn't have one, you increase downforce massively. Pretty cheap to do, not much R&D needed.
Then the regulations demand I reduce the size of the wing, so to regain the lost downforce I pay a bit more attention to the shape of the aerofoil - I need to do some R&D to determine what will work best, probably doubles the original R&D budget.
Regulations tighten up again, size of the wing is reduced, rules on how the wing is mounted and a deflection test are added. This gives me some real challenges, my R&D budget is now four times what it was. I have to experiment with split level wings to regain the downforce. I can't test the car, because testing is all but banned, so I have to find other ways of verifying my designs.
Repeat this until I'm in a situation where I've bought a scale wind tunnel, an autoclave and a CFD modelling system. I've employed a bunch of people to design me the best wing within the regulations. They are looking for a 1 or 2% improvement and its costing me £100,000, My first wing (now illegal) cost me £100 and gave me 80% improvement.
This is where F1 is now, huge budgets, tiny gains. Teams (who have the finances) spend massive amounts for that little edge over the competition.
The big problem is that its going to be very hard to stop this level of spending, even if regulations were relaxed. If anything spending might increase as the "free hand" means there could be more potential paths of development.
I don't know what the answer is to be honest. Cost caps are too easy to work around, unless someone spends a massive amount of time and money on audits. The level of spending that some teams are accustomed to would be maintained if regulations were loosened. If regulations are tightened costs will just increase.
If change is going to happen everyone needs to do their bit. FOM could share prize money more equally, teams could stop squabbling between themselves and think about the wisder picture than trying to get one over everyone else. The FIA could work with teams to remove any regulations that are particularly expensive but have little impact on actual racing.
Maybe an independent body needs to do a study and come up with some recommendations - I bet if you left people like Brawn and Head could find some effective changes to actually reduce costs. Whats Pescarolo up to now? he may well have some good input too.
Given that these changes have to be ratified by the teams, who it's generally not in the interests of, then it's just not going to happen.
The FIA and mid-field teams must be rubbing their hands if they can use an 18-car grid to either walk away from or, most likely, renegotiate a better deal with FOM. The teams and FIA get a bigger slice. Maybe if they think beyond the end of their self-interest, the tracks could actually make a profit as well. The downside? CVC get a lower return on their investment.
Most F1 fans could probably live with that...
The FIA and mid-field teams must be rubbing their hands if they can use an 18-car grid to either walk away from or, most likely, renegotiate a better deal with FOM. The teams and FIA get a bigger slice. Maybe if they think beyond the end of their self-interest, the tracks could actually make a profit as well. The downside? CVC get a lower return on their investment.
Most F1 fans could probably live with that...
Europa1 said:
Bizarre article on Pitpass reporting that Bernie says that the arrangement is that the "third car" will be one of the big teams loaning a car to a struggling team. Yes customer cars are currently banned.
F1 2014 - I think I need to go and lie down in a darkened room.
http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/where-do-we-go-from-here/F1 2014 - I think I need to go and lie down in a darkened room.
TL;DR the (s)pitpass article is just copied from the Mail, Joe points out that the Concorde is secret - so either its all made up or someone is in breach of contract.
In other words don't pay too much notice.
He has a bit of a pop at the author of the Mail piece here, these two seem to enjoy sniping at each other via their articles: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/the-need...
Crafty_ said:
The tighter the regulations are the more you are in to diminishing returns - for example if you stick a wing on to a car that doesn't have one, you increase downforce massively. Pretty cheap to do, not much R&D needed.
Then the regulations demand I reduce the size of the wing, so to regain the lost downforce I pay a bit more attention to the shape of the aerofoil - I need to do some R&D to determine what will work best, probably doubles the original R&D budget.
Regulations tighten up again, size of the wing is reduced, rules on how the wing is mounted and a deflection test are added. This gives me some real challenges, my R&D budget is now four times what it was. I have to experiment with split level wings to regain the downforce. I can't test the car, because testing is all but banned, so I have to find other ways of verifying my designs.
Repeat this until I'm in a situation where I've bought a scale wind tunnel, an autoclave and a CFD modelling system. I've employed a bunch of people to design me the best wing within the regulations. They are looking for a 1 or 2% improvement and its costing me £100,000, My first wing (now illegal) cost me £100 and gave me 80% improvement.
You don't even have to invoke increased regulations for that cycle to start - it'll get going the second another team puts a wing on their car, too...Then the regulations demand I reduce the size of the wing, so to regain the lost downforce I pay a bit more attention to the shape of the aerofoil - I need to do some R&D to determine what will work best, probably doubles the original R&D budget.
Regulations tighten up again, size of the wing is reduced, rules on how the wing is mounted and a deflection test are added. This gives me some real challenges, my R&D budget is now four times what it was. I have to experiment with split level wings to regain the downforce. I can't test the car, because testing is all but banned, so I have to find other ways of verifying my designs.
Repeat this until I'm in a situation where I've bought a scale wind tunnel, an autoclave and a CFD modelling system. I've employed a bunch of people to design me the best wing within the regulations. They are looking for a 1 or 2% improvement and its costing me £100,000, My first wing (now illegal) cost me £100 and gave me 80% improvement.
Evangelion said:
Why not just say that the teams can run 3 cars, but only the top 2 finishers in each race score WDC/WCC points?
I still wouldn't want it to happen, though ...
It is said that this would be the plan, problem is it still steals points from the smaller teams. e.g.I still wouldn't want it to happen, though ...
2 car teams
Merc take 1st & 2nd in a race. Score: 25 + 18.
Red Bull take 3rd. Score 15.
Force India take 4th. Score 12.
3 car teams
Merc take 1st, 2nd, 3rd. Score: 25 + 18
Red Bull take 4th. Score 12.
Force India take 5th. Score 10.
Good article, with a reasonable "solution" here: http://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/no...
As I understand the 3-car rules as they stand, a teams 3rd car won't get constructors points BUT those points won't then go to the next car which is the 1st/2nd car in a team.
Why not ?
It would seem to take away a lot of the concerns for lower teams if constructors points were awarded to the 1st & 2nd cars in a team ( nominated at the beginning of the season, or just the top 2 cars in a team at the end of the race ) based on the order they finished in IGNORING any 3rd cars that may be in there too.
Drivers points to be awarded to all drivers based on finishing position INCLUDING 3rd cars
Why not ?
It would seem to take away a lot of the concerns for lower teams if constructors points were awarded to the 1st & 2nd cars in a team ( nominated at the beginning of the season, or just the top 2 cars in a team at the end of the race ) based on the order they finished in IGNORING any 3rd cars that may be in there too.
Drivers points to be awarded to all drivers based on finishing position INCLUDING 3rd cars
Good article but not entirely accurate. It implies that 10 teams have disappeared since 2004 which isn't true, some of them just changed identities. Look at Red Bull that used to be Jaguar that used to be Stewart. And Force India was Spyker, also Midland but originally was Jordan (think I missed one or two names out there).
Then there's Lotus, previously Renault, before that Benetton, but started off as Toleman.
Not forgetting the current leader, Tyrrell. Tyrrell? That's right - Ken sold out to BAR who became Honda who became Brawn who became ... Mercedes.
And Marussia used to be PMT; weren't they Minardi before? Or was that Toro Rosso?
Then there's Lotus, previously Renault, before that Benetton, but started off as Toleman.
Not forgetting the current leader, Tyrrell. Tyrrell? That's right - Ken sold out to BAR who became Honda who became Brawn who became ... Mercedes.
And Marussia used to be PMT; weren't they Minardi before? Or was that Toro Rosso?
MartG said:
As I understand the 3-car rules as they stand...
The only thing to understand about the third car rules is that everything so far written on the subject, in forums and by professional journalists, is complete guesswork and speculation, as none of the actual rules, if they even currently exist, have ever been published.Evangelion said:
Good article but not entirely accurate. It implies that 10 teams have disappeared since 2004 which isn't true, some of them just changed identities. Look at Red Bull that used to be Jaguar that used to be Stewart. And Force India was Spyker, also Midland but originally was Jordan (think I missed one or two names out there).
Then there's Lotus, previously Renault, before that Benetton, but started off as Toleman.
Not forgetting the current leader, Tyrrell. Tyrrell? That's right - Ken sold out to BAR who became Honda who became Brawn who became ... Mercedes.
And Marussia used to be PMT; weren't they Minardi before? Or was that Toro Rosso?
Minardi were Toro Rosso.Then there's Lotus, previously Renault, before that Benetton, but started off as Toleman.
Not forgetting the current leader, Tyrrell. Tyrrell? That's right - Ken sold out to BAR who became Honda who became Brawn who became ... Mercedes.
And Marussia used to be PMT; weren't they Minardi before? Or was that Toro Rosso?
They have technically disappeared though. They've ceased to exist and sold their licences. They've ceased to exist because F1 is too expensive and unsustainable so he's technically correct.
thegreenhell said:
The only thing to understand about the third car rules is that everything so far written on the subject, in forums and by professional journalists, is complete guesswork and speculation, as none of the actual rules, if they even currently exist, have ever been published.
This is true. And the more seasoned journos are honest enough to mention that.
Crafty_ said:
. . .
If you become even stricter its even less likely smaller teams can build a competitive car.
The tighter the regulations are the more you are in to diminishing returns . . .
This is where F1 is now, huge budgets, tiny gains. Teams (who have the finances) spend massive amounts for that little edge over the competition.
You've contradicted the point of your post.If you become even stricter its even less likely smaller teams can build a competitive car.
The tighter the regulations are the more you are in to diminishing returns . . .
This is where F1 is now, huge budgets, tiny gains. Teams (who have the finances) spend massive amounts for that little edge over the competition.
The more restrictive the regs the less likely the big budget teams are to get a 2 sec advantage over the rest of the field, like we've had at some races this season with Merc.
The teams most likely to come up with the race winning developments if there is a free for all are the ones with most money to spend. The advantage a team with more money has over a team with less is that they have more money to spend to find advantages. If, as you say and I agree, that the big teams spend £millions for tiny gains then for all their extra money they only go slightly faster.
Therefore the mid-pack teams can use other methods - different pit stop strategies, working the cars together, playing the odds, going for wet weather set up if there's a 30% chance of rain - we've seen that on occasion.
Different tyre strategy can give an advantage of seconds. For instance if LH and NR are running 1 and 2 then LH will wait for a move from NR before deciding on what tyres to go for. A few seconds lost to the rest of the field matters little as they are racing each other. An adventurous strategy might get their car at the front with 10 laps to go. Then they will have considerable air-time as the Mercs come past.
F1 isn't all about who comes first. There are races all the way down the field. A team that has just come into the sport needs to be able to compete with the mid-pack teams, not the leaders. A restrictive set of regulations means that they have not got a massive amount of ground to make up.
thats one way of looking at it, the other way is those with money will spend it to find gains within the tight regs, it costs more because its harder to find them, the small guys can't do it, because they don't have the money.
The problem is that they've got ever better at doing just that, so are never going to stop, even if you freed up the regulations.
The danger of tighter regulations is you end up with a spec series. Scuffers posted elsewhere that he thinks F1 already is. I don't necessarily agree, but how much further can we go with tightening regs until it is ?
The problem is that they've got ever better at doing just that, so are never going to stop, even if you freed up the regulations.
The danger of tighter regulations is you end up with a spec series. Scuffers posted elsewhere that he thinks F1 already is. I don't necessarily agree, but how much further can we go with tightening regs until it is ?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff