Has the FIA forgotten what F1 is really about?
Discussion
Is the latest change to the rules regarding number of engines allowed next year another nail in the coffin of out and out racing in F1?
We already have drivers managing their tyres and engines leading to "managed" races rather than balls out start to finish racing. I suspect the 3 engine rule will mean even more management of engines for longivity rather than thrashing them to race.
How many grid penalties will we see next year based on the crazy McLaren/Renault situation this year (~ 700 grid penaties combined)?
Isn't it time the FIA stopped pretending that F1 is about cost saving and the environment and get back to "proper" racing?
Thoughts anyone?
We already have drivers managing their tyres and engines leading to "managed" races rather than balls out start to finish racing. I suspect the 3 engine rule will mean even more management of engines for longivity rather than thrashing them to race.
How many grid penalties will we see next year based on the crazy McLaren/Renault situation this year (~ 700 grid penaties combined)?
Isn't it time the FIA stopped pretending that F1 is about cost saving and the environment and get back to "proper" racing?
Thoughts anyone?
I don't think it's that simple. F1 cars are very complex now and everything costs a fortune. If you allow a free for all on regulations, the costs become ludicrous and more teams fall by the way side. You'd get great cars flat out, but only a couple of teams competing. Controlling budgets directly is almost impossible, so the only way to keep costs down is to limit components. This, sadly, gives us the situation we've got now.
The only way to get back to the "old" days is to make cars cheaper to build so that cost restrictions aren't necessary. The problem you then have is that F1 is no longer the cutting edge.
I'm not sure there is an answer because of the advance of technology. We can't go back because F1 needs to be relevant and you can't go forward unlimited because of the cost. The only thing we can do now is try and find a balance. Cheap enough to allow teams to enter, but still be the leading series in the world. I guess that's what the FiA try and do, but I think it can never be what it was.
The only way to get back to the "old" days is to make cars cheaper to build so that cost restrictions aren't necessary. The problem you then have is that F1 is no longer the cutting edge.
I'm not sure there is an answer because of the advance of technology. We can't go back because F1 needs to be relevant and you can't go forward unlimited because of the cost. The only thing we can do now is try and find a balance. Cheap enough to allow teams to enter, but still be the leading series in the world. I guess that's what the FiA try and do, but I think it can never be what it was.
But why do the FIA have a say in what the engine should be, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't they just there to police the rules whatever they may be? Surely liberty who own the sport decide on the rules like type of engine, barriers to entry, amount of teams, amount of races etc etc, it's their sport and they have to make it a spectacle, the FIA seem to have got involved in this whole green thing and pushed it through even against Bernie's and the owners wishes back then.
Liberty need to grow some and say to the FIA this is our sport and we set the rules, we just ask you to police them, if you won't then we'll ask the ACO to do it.
To the teams then much the same, here are the rules - here's the entry form, if you don't like it then go and do Formula E, then replace the manufacturer teams with a load of privateers who can buy a years supply of V8s or whatever for $6m
Liberty need to grow some and say to the FIA this is our sport and we set the rules, we just ask you to police them, if you won't then we'll ask the ACO to do it.
To the teams then much the same, here are the rules - here's the entry form, if you don't like it then go and do Formula E, then replace the manufacturer teams with a load of privateers who can buy a years supply of V8s or whatever for $6m
Vaud said:
Are the production of the engines that big a cost?
I think one per race is bad - it would increase the arms race (and spiral costs upwards) if they could change components.
But then I think three is too few. One engine per 4 races seems reasonable?
fag packet calcs say it would increase the cost of the smaller teams by 2% to have an additional engine in the seasonI think one per race is bad - it would increase the arms race (and spiral costs upwards) if they could change components.
But then I think three is too few. One engine per 4 races seems reasonable?
Derek Smith said:
I wonder how much it actually saves.
There must be significant costs to making an engine last compared to that of having one that grenades after 90 mins.
I don't think it is the production cost saving per se.There must be significant costs to making an engine last compared to that of having one that grenades after 90 mins.
It's the "arms race" cost if you allowed lots of engines per season - teams would be chasing more power, every race?
Limiting engines doesn't save a penny. The amount of investment required to make an engine that can last 7 races is huge. Just this change from 4 to 3 engines per year has required new engines with different spec major components that all have to be rig proven. Renault is against the relaxation from the 2018 rules because they just designed a completely new engine for next year to cope with the extra life.
The cost is in the R&D and prototyping, not the production. We need a much cheaper architecture than the current V6 hybrid if we are ever going to see new manufacturers involved.
The cost is in the R&D and prototyping, not the production. We need a much cheaper architecture than the current V6 hybrid if we are ever going to see new manufacturers involved.
I'm sick of the whole thing. Every year I have hoped and nothing ever changes for the better in this sport. Its ludicrous as sports go and to be honest there is much better motorsport out there to watch.
I honestly get more enjoyment watching Ginnetta Juniors so what does that say for the pinnacle of motrosport!
I honestly get more enjoyment watching Ginnetta Juniors so what does that say for the pinnacle of motrosport!
yeah another nail in the coffin - agreed.
I think the HALO is the end for me.
I haven't missed a race in about 35 years (live or recorded on occasion). I think you could consider me a proper fan.
It's all just become silly.
Big engines, one per race as you've said. Go fast, and loud and dangerous again.
That's what we all want to see.
I think the HALO is the end for me.
I haven't missed a race in about 35 years (live or recorded on occasion). I think you could consider me a proper fan.
It's all just become silly.
Big engines, one per race as you've said. Go fast, and loud and dangerous again.
That's what we all want to see.
The manufacturers are in F1 to sell their products and technology. Back in t'day, Ford often had the mantra "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday". Sure, back then it was all about the speed of the car. But these days Joe Public finds petrol expensive, tyres expensive, they need economical cars. Manufacturers can point to F1 with it's hybrid technology and say "well this car uses the same type of technology that gave Hamilton the title this year". Honda, I'm afraid, can't do that. But that's by the by.
The problem is with F1 is that yes the racing is now a managed procession because of fuel and tyres. But if you had regulation free racing you wouldn't get the innovation F1 is known for. Innovation comes from bending the rules, finding the loopholes and exploiting it.
The situation with engines is tricky, as to the manufacturers the technology can be sold for the car market. V12's won't be popular as no one has a wallet big enough to buy a refinery in Iran to get petrol to run it for a week. However, the innovation should mean that the manufacturers can draw the same amount of power from the engine while increasing the reliability of the engine. That does cost money to make happen yes, but to the manufacturer what's the PR like from having an engine continually blowing up? Anyone asked Honda or Renault?
Personally they should remove the no refueling and tyre rules, bring in two or three tyre companies. Cap the costs of the tyres to the manufacturers and increase the limit of tyres used on a race weekend. That would bring closer faster racing, and races like we saw with Damon Hill in Hungary in 1997. Less so the races like Indianapolis in 2005.
The problem is with F1 is that yes the racing is now a managed procession because of fuel and tyres. But if you had regulation free racing you wouldn't get the innovation F1 is known for. Innovation comes from bending the rules, finding the loopholes and exploiting it.
The situation with engines is tricky, as to the manufacturers the technology can be sold for the car market. V12's won't be popular as no one has a wallet big enough to buy a refinery in Iran to get petrol to run it for a week. However, the innovation should mean that the manufacturers can draw the same amount of power from the engine while increasing the reliability of the engine. That does cost money to make happen yes, but to the manufacturer what's the PR like from having an engine continually blowing up? Anyone asked Honda or Renault?
Personally they should remove the no refueling and tyre rules, bring in two or three tyre companies. Cap the costs of the tyres to the manufacturers and increase the limit of tyres used on a race weekend. That would bring closer faster racing, and races like we saw with Damon Hill in Hungary in 1997. Less so the races like Indianapolis in 2005.
RacerMDR said:
yeah another nail in the coffin - agreed.
I think the HALO is the end for me.
I haven't missed a race in about 35 years (live or recorded on occasion). I think you could consider me a proper fan.
It's all just become silly.
Big engines, one per race as you've said. Go fast, and loud and dangerous again.
That's what we all want to see.
I don't think it needs to go that far. As for dangerous? Not sure, the world has moved on, we don't want to see our heroes die in full HD colour on a Sunday. The cars are already fast (hearing Hamilton pushed so physically in a race is an indicator) I think the HALO is the end for me.
I haven't missed a race in about 35 years (live or recorded on occasion). I think you could consider me a proper fan.
It's all just become silly.
Big engines, one per race as you've said. Go fast, and loud and dangerous again.
That's what we all want to see.
One engine per race would also mean engine upgrades every race. That cost would be huge - and impact the smaller teams disproportionately?
Expecting an engine to last 3-4 races seems reasonable. Didn't Merc have one that had done a batty amount of miles recently? I don't want to move to 3 to cover 21+ races, but 1 per race would have unintended consequences in terms of cost?
In a World where if you start from the pits in a top 3 car you are still better than evens going to finish top 6 making the number of engines per season less, without going to single engine seasons, does not, on the face of it, appear likely to work as intended.
As for gentleman's agreements in F1 there may be the occasional understanding between them when mutually beneficial but ultimately it would just be another game of blink that no one will play as if they don't blink first they could lose the championship as a result, yet if they do they could do brand damage. Net result a customer mid field team will break ranks first, freeing all, and it all became a waste of time.
As for gentleman's agreements in F1 there may be the occasional understanding between them when mutually beneficial but ultimately it would just be another game of blink that no one will play as if they don't blink first they could lose the championship as a result, yet if they do they could do brand damage. Net result a customer mid field team will break ranks first, freeing all, and it all became a waste of time.
Vaud said:
I don't think it needs to go that far. As for dangerous? Not sure, the world has moved on, we don't want to see our heroes die in full HD colour on a Sunday. The cars are already fast (hearing Hamilton pushed so physically in a race is an indicator)
One engine per race would also mean engine upgrades every race. That cost would be huge - and impact the smaller teams disproportionately?
Expecting an engine to last 3-4 races seems reasonable. Didn't Merc have one that had done a batty amount of miles recently? I don't want to move to 3 to cover 21+ races, but 1 per race would have unintended consequences in terms of cost?
We used to have one engine per session in the 80's and 90's. Those engines were cheap by modern standards.One engine per race would also mean engine upgrades every race. That cost would be huge - and impact the smaller teams disproportionately?
Expecting an engine to last 3-4 races seems reasonable. Didn't Merc have one that had done a batty amount of miles recently? I don't want to move to 3 to cover 21+ races, but 1 per race would have unintended consequences in terms of cost?
jsf said:
We used to have one engine per session in the 80's and 90's. Those engines were cheap by modern standards.
Yes, I know. The reliability was also tragically bad...Sorry, I should have been clearer - with the current spec, 1 per race is too frequent. It isn't the engine cost that would worry me as the main issue. It's the ratcheting up of engine competition that would probably reduce the number of providers long term.
Vaud said:
Yes, I know. The reliability was also tragically bad...
Sorry, I should have been clearer - with the current spec, 1 per race is too frequent. It isn't the engine cost that would worry me as the main issue. It's the ratcheting up of engine competition that would probably reduce the number of providers long term.
we need to move away from the current spec and make the engines cheap to design and prototype, if we don't, we will never see new companies get involved. Its far too expensive to develop these engines, building the engine is the cheap bit. If you only have to make it last one event, its much cheaper to bring to market and make reliable.Sorry, I should have been clearer - with the current spec, 1 per race is too frequent. It isn't the engine cost that would worry me as the main issue. It's the ratcheting up of engine competition that would probably reduce the number of providers long term.
It has to go hand in hand with sensible technical rules that are targeted towards low cost for performance, no one watching the sport really cares whats under the bodywork, you cant see it and in the current restricted access to IP you never will. As the years go by the link to road cars is going to break more, not get closer.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff