More F1 rule changes
Discussion
What is Mosley playing at?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/3652005.stm
For godsakes, at this rate it will be just like F3000/FGP2, only less advanced!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/3652005.stm
For godsakes, at this rate it will be just like F3000/FGP2, only less advanced!
Does make a bit of a mockery of being the pinacle of motorsport. At this rate the club races in the support events will be quicker!
Problems would be solved by some sort of funding cap. Sure Ferarri are very well organised at the moment, but they can work on ten areas of development - due to very large pockets, whereas their competitors may only be able to focus on 8. I don't disagree that they have got their act together, but when they have £50-£100m more than their genuine competitors to spend, then the situation is not going to get any better until they go Italian again and lose this R. Braun / M. Schumacher attitude to continuous progress regardless.
Rich
Problems would be solved by some sort of funding cap. Sure Ferarri are very well organised at the moment, but they can work on ten areas of development - due to very large pockets, whereas their competitors may only be able to focus on 8. I don't disagree that they have got their act together, but when they have £50-£100m more than their genuine competitors to spend, then the situation is not going to get any better until they go Italian again and lose this R. Braun / M. Schumacher attitude to continuous progress regardless.
Rich
I can see where he's coming from. The key problem is "cost". With less and less companies able to supply cars for F1, the series will die within four or five years. At the moment, grids are at their lowest since 1970. Two of the teams are really struggling.
Now, I know people will say, only one or two teams have a chance of winning - that was always so - but having a race between four to six cars is not much of a spectacle.
I do not think that this initiative will make it through to a definite re-write of the rules (unfortunately) but, don't forget, once upon a time, the F! regulations were changed RADICALLY every four to six years,
Now, I know people will say, only one or two teams have a chance of winning - that was always so - but having a race between four to six cars is not much of a spectacle.
I do not think that this initiative will make it through to a definite re-write of the rules (unfortunately) but, don't forget, once upon a time, the F! regulations were changed RADICALLY every four to six years,
daydreamer said:
Does make a bit of a mockery of being the pinacle of motorsport. At this rate the club races in the support events will be quicker!
This already happens elsewhere. The Tuscans are generally quicker than the British GT's that we 'support'. It is a different type of racing though.
daydreamer said:
Problems would be solved by some sort of funding cap. Sure Ferarri are very well organised at the moment, but they can work on ten areas of development - due to very large pockets, whereas their competitors may only be able to focus on 8. I don't disagree that they have got their act together, but when they have £50-£100m more than their genuine competitors to spend, then the situation is not going to get any better until they go Italian again and lose this R. Braun / M. Schumacher attitude to continuous progress regardless.
Rich
A funding cap could never be policed and would thus be unworkable.
The only way to make it cheaper is to have regulations that strictly control key components of the car such that any amount of money doesn't affect them.
Of course the top teams will then spend their fortunes on other aspects of the car in search of minute performance advantages. But if you can narrow the opportunities for this then the driver becomes more of a definitive factor, the racing improves - the whole thing is cheaper and we all enjoy watching it more.
Would that not result in just a mish - mash of "old/new" cars.
Currently the rules do not allow teams to "buy" cars - they have to be manufactured by the participants. Of coure, this was not always the case. Maserati, Cooper, Lotus, March and sometimes even Ferrari often sold customer cars. In fact, you could almost claim the current Sauber team are in fact, a customer Ferrari team.
I'm all for simplfying the technology. F1 cars are now at a level where the technology means absolutely nothing. Despite what F1 may claim - and some fans may believe - F1 IS NOT the pinnacle of automotive technology. In fact, there are many humble family hatchbacks with more technology packed into them than Schumacher's Ferrari. The last time F1 cars could have been deemed to be more advanced than anything else was probably around 1981/82. More and more restrictions have been placed on the cars in the intervening twenty year - sometimes with cost reduction in mind but more usually with safety as the main reason. If F1 was totally unregulated, modern cars would be 300 mph manned missiles - I am absilutely sure of that.
F1 now has to look on itself as a sport again - providing competition, human interest and open access. The days when it could claim to be a demonstration of ultimate technology (always a dubious claim in my opinion anyway) are over.
Currently the rules do not allow teams to "buy" cars - they have to be manufactured by the participants. Of coure, this was not always the case. Maserati, Cooper, Lotus, March and sometimes even Ferrari often sold customer cars. In fact, you could almost claim the current Sauber team are in fact, a customer Ferrari team.
I'm all for simplfying the technology. F1 cars are now at a level where the technology means absolutely nothing. Despite what F1 may claim - and some fans may believe - F1 IS NOT the pinnacle of automotive technology. In fact, there are many humble family hatchbacks with more technology packed into them than Schumacher's Ferrari. The last time F1 cars could have been deemed to be more advanced than anything else was probably around 1981/82. More and more restrictions have been placed on the cars in the intervening twenty year - sometimes with cost reduction in mind but more usually with safety as the main reason. If F1 was totally unregulated, modern cars would be 300 mph manned missiles - I am absilutely sure of that.
F1 now has to look on itself as a sport again - providing competition, human interest and open access. The days when it could claim to be a demonstration of ultimate technology (always a dubious claim in my opinion anyway) are over.
How can you force teams to sell "last year's car" to rivals? It would be very difficult to implement.
Customer cars were sold to teams in an era when car sales was a subtantial part of racing car manufacturers' incomes. Indeed. most of them made and sold cars for lower formulae right down to club level not to mention sports cars. F1 nowadays is very much an isolated form of motor sport - cut adrift from the other categories and " doing its own thing".
Regarding brakes - about ten years ago, Williams did some comparison testing between steel and CF brakes on an F1 car - and they found very little difference. Maybe the cars should be limited to one brake disc only acting on a single rear drive dhaft - a bit like a kart set up.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 23 April 11:18
Customer cars were sold to teams in an era when car sales was a subtantial part of racing car manufacturers' incomes. Indeed. most of them made and sold cars for lower formulae right down to club level not to mention sports cars. F1 nowadays is very much an isolated form of motor sport - cut adrift from the other categories and " doing its own thing".
Regarding brakes - about ten years ago, Williams did some comparison testing between steel and CF brakes on an F1 car - and they found very little difference. Maybe the cars should be limited to one brake disc only acting on a single rear drive dhaft - a bit like a kart set up.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 23 April 11:18
Much more about this on Autosport -
www.autosport.com/newsitem.asp?id=26905&s=5
including
Technical:
2.4-litre V8 engines, with a maximum of four valves per cylinder
Engines must last two race weekends
Specified components to made from 'spec' materials
Standard ECUs
Manual gearboxes and clutches
Ban on electronically controlled differentials
Ban on power steering
Standard braking systems
Tyre widths reduced front and rear
Combined tyre and aero package to reduce grip, straightline and cornering speeds
Sporting:
No spare cars allowed during race weekends
Cars to remain in parc ferme throughout event
A single tyre supplier, producing to FIA 'spec'
Drastic reduction in testing based on mileage
Two identical sets of tyres for qual and race
New qualifying system
No tyre changes during the race
General:
No restrictions on sale or loan of chassis between teams
Twelve team entries to be accepted every year
Some of it seems incredibly badly thought out - engine to last 2 race weekends and cars to remain in parc ferme for entire event for example. Mechanical grip looks like its going to be slashed further and this will probably make the balance between mechanical and aero even worse, so the cars still won't be able to overtake.
I wish there was some way of policing a downforce limited formula - your car in maximum downforce configuration can't produce more than a certain amount of downforce, so the skill of the aerodynamics team is to reduce the amount of drag required to create that downforce. You could then have mechanical grip playing a much larger part and cars would be able to stay close together in corners.
www.autosport.com/newsitem.asp?id=26905&s=5
including
Technical:
2.4-litre V8 engines, with a maximum of four valves per cylinder
Engines must last two race weekends
Specified components to made from 'spec' materials
Standard ECUs
Manual gearboxes and clutches
Ban on electronically controlled differentials
Ban on power steering
Standard braking systems
Tyre widths reduced front and rear
Combined tyre and aero package to reduce grip, straightline and cornering speeds
Sporting:
No spare cars allowed during race weekends
Cars to remain in parc ferme throughout event
A single tyre supplier, producing to FIA 'spec'
Drastic reduction in testing based on mileage
Two identical sets of tyres for qual and race
New qualifying system
No tyre changes during the race
General:
No restrictions on sale or loan of chassis between teams
Twelve team entries to be accepted every year
Some of it seems incredibly badly thought out - engine to last 2 race weekends and cars to remain in parc ferme for entire event for example. Mechanical grip looks like its going to be slashed further and this will probably make the balance between mechanical and aero even worse, so the cars still won't be able to overtake.
I wish there was some way of policing a downforce limited formula - your car in maximum downforce configuration can't produce more than a certain amount of downforce, so the skill of the aerodynamics team is to reduce the amount of drag required to create that downforce. You could then have mechanical grip playing a much larger part and cars would be able to stay close together in corners.
d-man said:There is - simply make it a requirement that the teams supply the suspension forces (that they log anyway) to the FIA. Weight at 100mph minus weight at 0mph = downforce at 100mph - job done
I wish there was some way of policing a downforce limited formula - your car in maximum downforce configuration can't produce more than a certain amount of downforce, so the skill of the aerodynamics team is to reduce the amount of drag required to create that downforce. You could then have mechanical grip playing a much larger part and cars would be able to stay close together in corners.
. Difficult to police - maybe - but that is how they police the launch control regs at the moment, so don't really see a problem.
I understand the difficulties of capping spending, but similar handicapping systems work in other sports (Rugby in this country has a wages cap, and the lower American football teams get the pick of the draft).
At the end of the day - we all have to submit audited accounts for our businesses - and that appears to work reasonably well. OK - auditing benefit in kind is a little tricker, but surely not beyond the wit of man. I'm not so sure that a cap wouldn't work.
Richard
I'll sponsor you by supplying race engines at £5,000 a unit.
In fact its costs me, Mercedes/Cosworth/whoever, around £30,000 per unit to make the engines. Only that is a figure I will never make public.
You can go the the FIA and say you have complied with their spending cap. In truth you have bypassed it.
You know what its like in a one-make series. Even then those with lots of funds have an advantage. The advantage is reduced because the regs don't let you spend money on the major bits - so the driver becomes a much bigger variable factor.
I don't think spending caps are the way to go. I think more stringent regs are, provided they are consistently enforced.
I'll sponsor you by supplying race engines at £5,000 a unit.
In fact its costs me, Mercedes/Cosworth/whoever, around £30,000 per unit to make the engines. Only that is a figure I will never make public.
You can go the the FIA and say you have complied with their spending cap. In truth you have bypassed it.
You know what its like in a one-make series. Even then those with lots of funds have an advantage. The advantage is reduced because the regs don't let you spend money on the major bits - so the driver becomes a much bigger variable factor.
I don't think spending caps are the way to go. I think more stringent regs are, provided they are consistently enforced.
I do understand the difficulties, and the whole problem of benefit in kind - and don't have the answers. A solution could be that all major suppliers are included in the audit trail etc - all I was saying is that I'm sure that the FIA have overcome bigger problems.
But also, how does an eight cylinder engine cost significantly less than a ten cylinder one. It is almost counter productive - the regs may point to a really basic spec (no variable valve timing for instance) - but doesn't this just mean that the number of engines running on the dyno's doubles in order to get ahead of the competition - meaning twice as many engines, double the dynos, more space, more staff to supervise etc.
If there were power and weight caps on the engine, then maybe (once you've got the power, and the weight - providing that the reliability is OK, then job done), but while the money is there, and there are still gains to be made - it will be spent.
As you say - going down the line of control parts does limit the costs - as it is the same for everyone. I'm just not sure that I'm ready for F1 to become a one make series
.
Agree to disagree and all that. I;m sure that the eventual solution will be more based on what Bernie and Max think that the punters want rather than what we do anyway .
But also, how does an eight cylinder engine cost significantly less than a ten cylinder one. It is almost counter productive - the regs may point to a really basic spec (no variable valve timing for instance) - but doesn't this just mean that the number of engines running on the dyno's doubles in order to get ahead of the competition - meaning twice as many engines, double the dynos, more space, more staff to supervise etc.
If there were power and weight caps on the engine, then maybe (once you've got the power, and the weight - providing that the reliability is OK, then job done), but while the money is there, and there are still gains to be made - it will be spent.
As you say - going down the line of control parts does limit the costs - as it is the same for everyone. I'm just not sure that I'm ready for F1 to become a one make series
. Agree to disagree and all that
. I;m sure that the eventual solution will be more based on what Bernie and Max think that the punters want rather than what we do anyway . "Combined tyre and aero package to achieve specific targets for straightline and cornering speeds, grip and braking performance"
Er.. doest this mean that all cars will be limited to the same speed, same cornering speed same braking distance (same weight), and same traction? If so, its going to be a mighty boring race as everyone gets in line behind the pole position man.
Er.. doest this mean that all cars will be limited to the same speed, same cornering speed same braking distance (same weight), and same traction? If so, its going to be a mighty boring race as everyone gets in line behind the pole position man.
Xm5eR said:Noooooooo.
"Combined tyre and aero package to achieve specific targets for straightline and cornering speeds, grip and braking performance"
Er.. doest this mean that all cars will be limited to the same speed, same cornering speed same braking distance (same weight), and same traction? If so, its going to be a mighty boring race as everyone gets in line behind the pole position man.
Best racing is always in one make series (with limited aero admitedly), as the chasing driver knows how the car infront will behave and can use this to his advantage in the passing move.
Essentially, this rule is pushing more to the driver as it doesn't mean that the best car is at the front.
daydreamer said:
Noooooooo.
Best racing is always in one make series (with limited aero admitedly), as the chasing driver knows how the car infront will behave and can use this to his advantage in the passing move.
Essentially, this rule is pushing more to the driver as it doesn't mean that the best car is at the front.
Yup, I agree, where you have cars whose dominant characteristic isnt aerodynamic downforce.
Well personally I don't think watching a series where all the cars are similar is particularly interesting.
Sure, the racing is close and there would be plenty of overtaking which would all be down to driver skill, BUT, I don't want to watch a car because it's Kimi Raikonnen driving (He's a boring Tw*t), I want to watch a car because I like INTERESTING cars.
F1 was at it's best when some cars were stupidly quick in a straight line, some were magnificaent under braking and others were so light they would go round the outside on any corner....
Think back to Brabham Fan Car, Tyrell 6-wheeler, March 6-wheeler, Brabham / Renault Turbos etc... VARIATION is the key.
Why should all the cars use V8s or V10s, whats wrong with some 4-pot turbos and some V16s??? Control the amount of fuel they are allowed to use (easy to manage) and you have some seriously variable machinery around again.
Just my 2p.
Sure, the racing is close and there would be plenty of overtaking which would all be down to driver skill, BUT, I don't want to watch a car because it's Kimi Raikonnen driving (He's a boring Tw*t), I want to watch a car because I like INTERESTING cars.
F1 was at it's best when some cars were stupidly quick in a straight line, some were magnificaent under braking and others were so light they would go round the outside on any corner....
Think back to Brabham Fan Car, Tyrell 6-wheeler, March 6-wheeler, Brabham / Renault Turbos etc... VARIATION is the key.
Why should all the cars use V8s or V10s, whats wrong with some 4-pot turbos and some V16s??? Control the amount of fuel they are allowed to use (easy to manage) and you have some seriously variable machinery around again.
Just my 2p.
Eric Mc said:
F1 cars are now at a level where the technology means absolutely nothing. Despite what F1 may claim - and some fans may believe - F1 IS NOT the pinnacle of automotive technology. In fact, there are many humble family hatchbacks with more technology packed into them than Schumacher's Ferrari. The last time F1 cars could have been deemed to be more advanced than anything else was probably around 1981/82. More and more restrictions have been placed on the cars in the intervening twenty year - sometimes with cost reduction in mind but more usually with safety as the main reason. If F1 was totally unregulated, modern cars would be 300 mph manned missiles - I am absilutely sure of that.
Hmm. You might be very surprised at the level of technology in an F1 car.
Just take the engine as a starting point - over 300bhp/litre, nearly 19,000rpm and much less than 90kg these days. That is not the work of a moment and requires considerable brains and technology.
Then there's the chassis - incredible strength and controlled deformation in the event of an accident.
In fact, the whole package, which not displaying obvious features such as a stability programme, airbags, or a DAB radio, is so far ahead of modern regular road transport that the technology is far from being behind that of road cars. Fact is it has become irrelevant because it is so far advanced of road cars. Why do you think F1 teams would rather hire aerospace engineers rather than automotive ones? Exactly.
I'm not trying to sound like an arse and my apologies if I have, but the minutiae of F1 car componentry is truly extraordinary.
Yes, given a free reign the designers could come up with something much faster and more outrageous, but they have to work right up to the limit of today's restrictive rules. The level of innovation, I agree, is far less than it was, but the applied technology is as great as it was in the active suspension days of '92/'93.
Anyway, I think it'd be a great laugh if F1 keeled over and died. It's been possible to see this coming for years and if Minardi and Jordan finally give up the unequal struggle the championship will be in real trouble. Why does Minardi bother? Being the plucky underdog is one thing, but going to each race KNOWING you'll be last on the grid and you've fallen too far behind to ever catch up is just plain daft.
So what can be done? How about fairly big stock block engines? You'd get plenty of power for a fairly reasonable price, but the weight of the engines would automatically slow the cars in the corners and the packaging would be a complete pain in the ares. Most manufacturers have some fairly big engines these days, after all, and the relationship between the showroom and the track would become closer.
That may not be a great idea for certain manufacturers. Okay, let's introduce minimum dimensions and make the cars as big as Champ Cars. Or a fixed, supplied carbon tub, with restrictions on which parts the teams can develop and change. All the cars look the same these days anyway, so why not restrict aero development to wings/restricted areas of the sidepods only?
Full size fuel tanks. Grid the cars with enough fuel to last the whole race and possibly only one set of tyres, too. The whole complexion of the race would change as the fuel load lightened.
More weight. 750kg would be about right. That would reduce costs and help braking distances, too.
Less aero. Pretty obvious really, but all the best races happen between cars/bikes relying on mechanical grip only.
What must be understood about F1 is that even Minardi's budget would comfotably run a couple of Champ Car or IRL teams, with change. It is so much more expensive than any other series that the figures are truly baffling.
Sorry for the long post, but those are my thoughts on this truly exciting Friday afternoon in The Office...
Edited to apologise for certain bits of the above reading really badly and for the spelling mistakes, which I can't be bothered to correct.
>> Edited by Ahonen on Friday 23 April 15:38
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff