further F1 cost cutting from MM

[skinny]

here is a link to the full letter from max to FOTA regarding further cost cutting

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72644

this is an interesting sentence:

said:

"...we will be ready to recognise an independent series should some teams prefer to go their own way."

also, don't really get what he's talking about on moveable aero (which i think will be a disaster). he says:

said:

"We intend to seek FOTA's help to investigate the use of moveable aerodynamic devices. If sufficiently radical, these could give a car following another car a performance advantage by virtue of being behind. In a primitive way, this was the case in the 1960s, when a car would get a "tow" and lose lift and thus be faster in the wake of another car.

"The result was wheel-to-wheel racing at the so-called slip-streaming circuits, for example pre-chicane Monza. Using modern technology, moveable aero devices could be used to give a car more downforce and less drag whenever it was in turbulent air.
"This would produce wheel-to-wheel racing on all types of circuit. It would, however, require significant (possibly automatic) moveable aero devices."

however, in the 60's, cars didn't have moveable aero, and the problem will remain that you will have no downforce following a car through a corner? it solves nothing and adds complexity.

Edited by skinny on Thursday 8th January 11:34

[thestig84]

skinny said:

however, in the 60's, cars didn't have moveable aero, and the problem will remain that you will have no downforce following a car through a corner? it solves nothing and adds complexity.

I think the moveable devices would be able to utilise the dirty air and the slip stream so are at an advantage from being behind

Using modern technology, moveable aero devices could be used to give a car more downforce and less drag whenever it was in turbulent air.
"This would produce wheel-to-wheel racing on all types of circuit. It would, however, require significant (possibly automatic) moveable aero devices."

[mrmr96]

Have I got this right:

They want to have automatic adjustments to improve the preformance of a car when it's following another?

Will this be like that 'slower-car-catchup' feature found on some arcade style racing games? (Provides the slower of two cars with more speed and grip to keep the race tight.)

[thestig84]

I dont think it would be as dramatic as maybe your thinking.

A top car would still pull away from a slow car. However out of 2 evenly matched cars the one following would gain a little instead of loosing out like we currently have

[FourWheelDrift]

Max von Mosely said:

"The result was wheel-to-wheel racing at the so-called slip-streaming circuits, for example pre-chicane Monza."

Well you will only get wheel to wheel slipstreaming at circuits without silly chicanes. So what about all the chicanes that have been put into all the modern circuits and rebuilt older circuits that F1 race on to slow cars down?

So Max are you going to pay for the rebuilding of Hockenheim and then race there, along with Solitude, Bremgarten, Pescara, Reims and the Monza Banking. Lovely.

He wants the moon on a stick.

[chim666]

Maybe what he's talking about is some method of reducing the wing(s) on high speed straights making the following car less reliant on down-force and as a result, not affected so much by the car ahead?

[flemke]

skinny said:

here is a link to the full letter from max to FOTA regarding further cost cutting

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72644

this is an interesting sentence:

said:

"...we will be ready to recognise an independent series should some teams prefer to go their own way."

also, don't really get what he's talking about on moveable aero (which i think will be a disaster). he says:

said:

"We intend to seek FOTA's help to investigate the use of moveable aerodynamic devices. If sufficiently radical, these could give a car following another car a performance advantage by virtue of being behind. In a primitive way, this was the case in the 1960s, when a car would get a "tow" and lose lift and thus be faster in the wake of another car.

"The result was wheel-to-wheel racing at the so-called slip-streaming circuits, for example pre-chicane Monza. Using modern technology, moveable aero devices could be used to give a car more downforce and less drag whenever it was in turbulent air.
"This would produce wheel-to-wheel racing on all types of circuit. It would, however, require significant (possibly automatic) moveable aero devices."

however, in the 60's, cars didn't have moveable aero, and the problem will remain that you will have no downforce following a car through a corner? it solves nothing and adds complexity.

What Mosley was referring to, but did not express well, is something that the "Overtaking Working Group" (Paddy Lowe, Rory Byrne, etc) concluded: that a major reason why there was much more overtaking before the '70s was that most cars had lift at the front when they were running in clear air.
When they got behind another car, however, the dirty air would tend to reduce the front lift. In a bend, this absence of lift gave the following car a grip advantage over the car ahead, the front of which was still lifting.

[Derek Smith]

I'm with skinny:

skinny said:

this is an interesting sentence:

said:

"...we will be ready to recognise an independent series should some teams prefer to go their own way."

That would be a way of keeping (a limited degree of) control should manufacturers tell Mosley they aren't interested in his ideas.

Does it mean that 'some teams prefer to go' to countries that are interested in motor racing? Does this indicate that FOTA's agenda has not been shared with me? Does 'independant' mean independant of the FiA and rulemaker and police?

Does anyone else smell a certain degre of desperation on behalf of Mosley? The letter is not worded in a manner that would suggest he is lord and master of all he surveys.

It's all very worrying. If you were seeking money from people to invest in Donington for the next ten years, 'independant series' is probably not what you wanted to hear.

Edited by Derek Smith on Thursday 8th January 12:38

[nc107]

His request regarding Cosworth also had the smell of desperation.

"...provided they have firm orders to supply three teams within the next week or two"

Seems his great idea of bringing Cosworth is likely to go by the wayside. The manufacturers have him by the preverbials (a hold he may enjoy !), if they don't agree to the changes Cosworth cannot be price competitive - if they are price competetive they can just shut them out by ensuring less than three teams require engines ( in a small dark room somewhere, Messers McClaren, Ferrari, Toyota and BMW whispering "if you supply them, we'll do them and you two sort them out, and bingo; no market for Cosy).

I am also not sure how the introduction of moveable areo squares with a reduction in CFD and windtunnel testing - surely it is the opposite ?

[Derek Smith]

I've just had an email from a friend who gave me a link to the letter with the rider:

So this is why Jackie [Stewart] came into the fray at this time.

I've given it a bit of thought - two or three mintues - and what struck me was that he used to be a team owner, has still got contacts, and who better to head the pro for the teams opting out of F1 and going their own way? Luca di started the ball rolling with his attack on Bernie.

Conspircy theories and all that I know, but people do conspire especially where big money is concerned.

[flemke]

Derek Smith said:

Does it mean that 'some teams prefer to go' to countries that are interested in motor racing? Does this indicate that FOTA's agenda has not been shared with me? Does 'independant' mean independant of the FiA and rulemaker and police?

I'd speculate that it's meant as another shot across CVC's bows. He appears to want to force their hand, which right now is much weaker than it has ever been:
- teams united
- ability to grow revenue very limited
- traditional venues unable to carry on, which, even if they can be replaced, will have impact on broadcast fees; newer venues re-examining the financial sense of paying these idiots $30M for the privilege of holding a race; no race in North America for foreseeable future.
- FIA advocating that commercial rights holder give up larger % of current revenue to teams
- very difficult these days to raise funding. If CVC needs funding, it will find it scarce. If they'd like to flip the business to someone else, that new party similarly would be hard-pressed to fund it, meaning lower price to CVC.

One really would not wish to be in CVC's present position, and it appears that der Floggermeister is simply trying to tighten the screw.

[Colesy21]

surely moveable aerodynamic devices would just require millions of pounds in R&D. That doesn't really go hand in hand with all his talk about cost cutting.

[Derek Smith]

flemke said:

Derek Smith said:

Does it mean that 'some teams prefer to go' to countries that are interested in motor racing? Does this indicate that FOTA's agenda has not been shared with me? Does 'independant' mean independant of the FiA and rulemaker and police?

I'd speculate that it's meant as another shot across CVC's bows. He appears to want to force their hand, which right now is much weaker than it has ever been:
- teams united
- ability to grow revenue very limited
- traditional venues unable to carry on, which, even if they can be replaced, will have impact on broadcast fees; newer venues re-examining the financial sense of paying these idiots $30M for the privilege of holding a race; no race in North America for foreseeable future.
- FIA advocating that commercial rights holder give up larger % of current revenue to teams
- very difficult these days to raise funding. If CVC needs funding, it will find it scarce. If they'd like to flip the business to someone else, that new party similarly would be hard-pressed to fund it, meaning lower price to CVC.

One really would not wish to be in CVC's present position, and it appears that der Floggermeister is simply trying to tighten the screw.

Thanks for that.

But if CVC does collapse one would assume that the rights would be up for sale again? Or does Bernie hold those? What chance Donington GP in 2010? Come to that, what chance Silverstone?

[flemke]

Derek Smith said:

But if CVC does collapse one would assume that the rights would be up for sale again? Or does Bernie hold those? What chance Donington GP in 2010? Come to that, what chance Silverstone?

Would depend on the contract terms. Nicola Foulston was able to sell on the rights to British GP without apparent repercussions from Berns.
As rude-boy suggested on a parallel thread, the most likely outcome is Silverstone in '10.

[Joe911]

Colesy21 said:

surely moveable aerodynamic devices would just require millions of pounds in R&D. That doesn't really go hand in hand with all his talk about cost cutting.

Same's true of KERS - where's the cost saving there?

[chim666]

Colesy21 said:

surely moveable aerodynamic devices would just require millions of pounds in R&D. That doesn't really go hand in hand with all his talk about cost cutting.

Don't forget Ferrari's flexible wing. I suspect it was not too expensive to develop, but was deemed illegal according to the rules, but then...what if the rules were to change

[Lord Croker]

"We intend to seek FOTA's help to investigate the use of moveable aerodynamic devices. If sufficiently radical, these could give a car following another car a performance advantage by virtue of being behind. In a primitive way, this was the case in the 1960s, when a car would get a "tow" and lose lift and thus be faster in the wake of another car."



This is what he's talking about - the Chaparral 2F had a movable rear wing which the driver would feather on straights to reduce drag.

It sounds like a good idea to me - if eveybody had the same opportunity to run a similar system it could improve a driver's chances of overtaking, and the cost could be kept down by keeping the tech simple.

[dpbird90]

FourWheelDrift said:

He wants the moon on a stick.

Presumably so he can stick the moon up his arse and have some German birds whack him with said stick

[Derek Smith]

Lord Croker said:

This is what he's talking about - the Chaparral 2F had a movable rear wing which the driver would feather on straights to reduce drag.

I saw that running at Brands in the 60s driven by, I seem to remember, A. J. Foyte. it seemed an odd place to do it as the straights were more like corners. It looked radical at the time, quite exciting. I can see the logic to the proposition to allow towing. There's two ways of going about it: set the following car up to benefit from the disturbed air or, limit the disturbed air.

[Lord Croker]

Derek Smith said:

Lord Croker said:

This is what he's talking about - the Chaparral 2F had a movable rear wing which the driver would feather on straights to reduce drag.

I saw that running at Brands in the 60s driven by, I seem to remember, A. J. Foyte. it seemed an odd place to do it as the straights were more like corners. It looked radical at the time, quite exciting. I can see the logic to the proposition to allow towing. There's two ways of going about it: set the following car up to benefit from the disturbed air or, limit the disturbed air.

Or both...

IIRC it was mentioned in MotorSport recently that when Phil Hill drove the 2F he used a 3rd pedal (it was an auto) to control the wing. It must have taken a lot of practice to perfect the technique