FIA Thread

[n_anirudh]

On the topic of awarding fastest laps, seeing G Russel who was out of contention of the race (Singapore GP 2022) compete for it is a bit ridiculous and almost bad sportsmanship. (Nothing personal against him or his team, but it could just as well be applicable to any other team. It is within the current rules and is not illegal). It seemed he was there just to take off points from Perez or Leclerc, which seemed like a sore loser.

Its a mockery of the rules IMO, and if a driver outside of the top 10 has the FL, the fastest of the points finishers should be awarded the point.

I hope FIA considers this for 2023

Not really as Sergio is the driver directly ahead of Russell and it was worth 2 points to him if Sergio did not get it.

The point for the fastest lap is awarded to the top 10 finishers. Russel was 14th. But I get what you are saying - i.e,, Perez would have been one point ahead in the championship battle and that was denied.

[Zynerji]

Teams will spend on development to win, as it gives them a temporary advantage. It would take weeks to see something at an event, study it, and incorporate the concept into your design. It would just be a yearly tightening of the field as the designs converge instead of instant parts transfer. You would probably start with a "basic" engine design from Cosworth, and include the changes made by the teams in the chain from there.

Who would buy the data? Boeing and Lockheed would buy aero data, journos would buy cfd/cad data for technical content, consumers could buy merchandise as well as access to footage/media of the teams. And dont forget, the teams still keep their sponsors. The chain could even monetize licensing of the data-based technology to non-F1 OEM auto makers. This alone could drive the purse into multi-billions.

It would be open source (but Privately operated) as it would be an Ethereum-type (virtual machine) blockchain that the teams would tokenize the design of each part with its supporting data, mint it to the chain, and then submit it for scrutineering. Fans could then install a mining app on their phones/PCs that would mine the chain (virtual CPU) and can process CFD/FEA cases. Fans then earn merch tokens to get stuff like hats or event tickets for supporting the cycles.

Then it really becomes a user interface design that the teams can analyze, journos can self-pleasure over, and fans can plug into.

Someone will eventually harness the power of these chains for more than "coins". The true power is trusted compliance with full accounting and a virtual CPU. They could also run the spending budgets through there for FIA access.

The sport becomes cheaper, faster, and the competition loses its subjective influences. The purse gets bigger with the quality of content provided by the teams. Converged, thrilling races bring more sponsorship as viewership increases. More viewers means more blockchain miners.

As I say at work, if it's a full circle, it will roll downhill!

100 % sure that Renault, Daimler, VW and Ferrari plus partners like INEOS, DuPont, AP, etc would leave as there IP’s (and investments) would be shared to their direct competitors inside and outside F1.

I took that into account. You would start with the "base" chassis and engine, and the only sharing would be modifications by the teams. This is EXACTLY why the cost would come way down. No one would invest multi-millions in proprietary tech if they wanted it as a market advantage. This IS the self balance that is missing.

[AR3-GP]

Teams will spend on development to win, as it gives them a temporary advantage. It would take weeks to see something at an event, study it, and incorporate the concept into your design. It would just be a yearly tightening of the field as the designs converge instead of instant parts transfer. You would probably start with a "basic" engine design from Cosworth, and include the changes made by the teams in the chain from there.

Who would buy the data? Boeing and Lockheed would buy aero data, journos would buy cfd/cad data for technical content, consumers could buy merchandise as well as access to footage/media of the teams. And dont forget, the teams still keep their sponsors. The chain could even monetize licensing of the data-based technology to non-F1 OEM auto makers. This alone could drive the purse into multi-billions.

It would be open source (but Privately operated) as it would be an Ethereum-type (virtual machine) blockchain that the teams would tokenize the design of each part with its supporting data, mint it to the chain, and then submit it for scrutineering. Fans could then install a mining app on their phones/PCs that would mine the chain (virtual CPU) and can process CFD/FEA cases. Fans then earn merch tokens to get stuff like hats or event tickets for supporting the cycles.

Then it really becomes a user interface design that the teams can analyze, journos can self-pleasure over, and fans can plug into.

Someone will eventually harness the power of these chains for more than "coins". The true power is trusted compliance with full accounting and a virtual CPU. They could also run the spending budgets through there for FIA access.

The sport becomes cheaper, faster, and the competition loses its subjective influences. The purse gets bigger with the quality of content provided by the teams. Converged, thrilling races bring more sponsorship as viewership increases. More viewers means more blockchain miners.

As I say at work, if it's a full circle, it will roll downhill!

100 % sure that Renault, Daimler, VW and Ferrari plus partners like INEOS, DuPont, AP, etc would leave as there IP’s (and investments) would be shared to their direct competitors inside and outside F1.

I took that into account. You would start with the "base" chassis and engine, and the only sharing would be modifications by the teams. This is EXACTLY why the cost would come way down. No one would invest multi-millions in proprietary tech if they wanted it as a market advantage. This IS the self balance that is missing.

Why not just watch indycar then?

[Zynerji]

100 % sure that Renault, Daimler, VW and Ferrari plus partners like INEOS, DuPont, AP, etc would leave as there IP’s (and investments) would be shared to their direct competitors inside and outside F1.

I took that into account. You would start with the "base" chassis and engine, and the only sharing would be modifications by the teams. This is EXACTLY why the cost would come way down. No one would invest multi-millions in proprietary tech if they wanted it as a market advantage. This IS the self balance that is missing.

Why not just watch indycar then?

Because there is no innovation in a spec series. Everyone seems to jump to the conclusion that RBR would immediately copy Mercedes waterpump if they saw the drawings. It would simply lead to RBR building their own better waterpump due to the data-share.

[Just_a_fan]

I took that into account. You would start with the "base" chassis and engine, and the only sharing would be modifications by the teams. This is EXACTLY why the cost would come way down. No one would invest multi-millions in proprietary tech if they wanted it as a market advantage. This IS the self balance that is missing.

Why not just watch indycar then?

Because there is no innovation in a spec series. Everyone seems to jump to the conclusion that RBR would immediately copy Mercedes waterpump if they saw the drawings. It would simply lead to RBR building their own better waterpump due to the data-share.

But it would become a spec series as each team would pick the best bits from the list on the system. And then next year they'd pick the newest best bits. And so on. Costs wouldn't go down because everyone would be chasing the newest "best" bit.

[Zynerji]

Why not just watch indycar then?

Because there is no innovation in a spec series. Everyone seems to jump to the conclusion that RBR would immediately copy Mercedes waterpump if they saw the drawings. It would simply lead to RBR building their own better waterpump due to the data-share.

But it would become a spec series as each team would pick the best bits from the list on the system. And then next year they'd pick the newest best bits. And so on. Costs wouldn't go down because everyone would be chasing the newest "best" bit.

Game theory says different. All PU makers currently use TJI. Each one spent hundreds of millions to develop in isolation, and ended up at the same place. So, a billion dollar spend to have a "spec" engine tech.

Costs go down as teams share research to reduce the redundancy, and the reverse engineering.

[Just_a_fan]

Because there is no innovation in a spec series. Everyone seems to jump to the conclusion that RBR would immediately copy Mercedes waterpump if they saw the drawings. It would simply lead to RBR building their own better waterpump due to the data-share.

But it would become a spec series as each team would pick the best bits from the list on the system. And then next year they'd pick the newest best bits. And so on. Costs wouldn't go down because everyone would be chasing the newest "best" bit.

Game theory says different. All PU makers currently use TJI. Each one spent hundreds of millions to develop in isolation, and ended up at the same place. So, a billion dollar spend to have a "spec" engine tech.

Costs go down as teams share research to reduce the redundancy, and the reverse engineering.

The teams spend money to gain an advantage, even if it only lasts a season - or even a few races. If they had to share everything, there would be no incentive to compete in the development race. Just sit and wait to be given it by someone else. Result is that no one does anything new.

[maxxer]

Sorry but this is an f1 technical forum.
I am sad f1 is so over regulated already.
It is becoming a soec series by now and just with a silly amount of races on the calender

[Zynerji]

But it would become a spec series as each team would pick the best bits from the list on the system. And then next year they'd pick the newest best bits. And so on. Costs wouldn't go down because everyone would be chasing the newest "best" bit.

Game theory says different. All PU makers currently use TJI. Each one spent hundreds of millions to develop in isolation, and ended up at the same place. So, a billion dollar spend to have a "spec" engine tech.

Costs go down as teams share research to reduce the redundancy, and the reverse engineering.

The teams spend money to gain an advantage, even if it only lasts a season - or even a few races. If they had to share everything, there would be no incentive to compete in the development race. Just sit and wait to be given it by someone else. Result is that no one does anything new.

The team that 'sits and waits' loses to those that develop. I don't understand your concern?

[Just_a_fan]

Game theory says different. All PU makers currently use TJI. Each one spent hundreds of millions to develop in isolation, and ended up at the same place. So, a billion dollar spend to have a "spec" engine tech.

Costs go down as teams share research to reduce the redundancy, and the reverse engineering.

The teams spend money to gain an advantage, even if it only lasts a season - or even a few races. If they had to share everything, there would be no incentive to compete in the development race. Just sit and wait to be given it by someone else. Result is that no one does anything new.

The team that 'sits and waits' loses to those that develop. I don't understand your concern?

But why spend money developing an advantage if it is immediately given away? It strikes at the very core of competitive motorsport in a prototype series - which is what F1 is. Why would a company spend money to benefit their competitors?

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The whole thing feels like a solution looking for a problem. This isn't the problem that the solution is intended for, sorry.

[johnny comelately]

The teams spend money to gain an advantage, even if it only lasts a season - or even a few races. If they had to share everything, there would be no incentive to compete in the development race. Just sit and wait to be given it by someone else. Result is that no one does anything new.

The team that 'sits and waits' loses to those that develop. I don't understand your concern?

But why spend money developing an advantage if it is immediately given away? It strikes at the very core of competitive motorsport in a prototype series - which is what F1 is. Why would a company spend money to benefit their competitors?

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The whole thing feels like a solution looking for a problem. This isn't the problem that the solution is intended for, sorry.

That is what happened under the claiming rule where competitors could buy the engine etc
But that didnt last....

[mzivtins]

I think first we should realise that data in itself gives nothing. Sharing data isn't bad like people think it is.

The team that can turn that data into information the most accurately wins, this is when they all moan about correlation when a team gets it wrong.

Telemetry is open, so is the engine behaviour by way that you can actually hear the thing work.

Sharing data is going to be critical from the point of view of catching those who are cheating, or even measuring affects of things that give off data in ways that cannot be measured currently (like how an underfloor works in certain loads)

You give away nothing by sharing data, the human creativity and expertise needed to invent and create solutions to problems will still exist in the minds of the few.

The point is proven every race weekend where the simulations have to be base-lined at every track using data from FP1 and FP2, even the teams themselves need entire days worth of time to interpret that data correctly in order to make setups which ultimately come from nothing more than human interaction and experience (and a healthy baseline of course)

Sharing data and using open source helps, but it takes nothing away from those who are top of their game, actually it helps prove that who you have in the team is MUCH more valuable

[wogx]

But why spend money developing an advantage if it is immediately given away? It strikes at the very core of competitive motorsport in a prototype series - which is what F1 is. Why would a company spend money to benefit their competitors?

It could be not given immediately. Maybe the data should be shared on January 1st of next year - teams would be able to analyze competitors concepts, but there wouldn't be too much time to input them on first race. The best concepts would be introduced faster to the entire grid, backmarkers would be more competitive, gaps would be reduced quicker.

[Big Tea]

Game theory says different. All PU makers currently use TJI. Each one spent hundreds of millions to develop in isolation, and ended up at the same place. So, a billion dollar spend to have a "spec" engine tech.

Costs go down as teams share research to reduce the redundancy, and the reverse engineering.

The teams spend money to gain an advantage, even if it only lasts a season - or even a few races. If they had to share everything, there would be no incentive to compete in the development race. Just sit and wait to be given it by someone else. Result is that no one does anything new.

The team that 'sits and waits' loses to those that develop. I don't understand your concern?

Or they win by reliability as everything they use is tested, proven beneficial and reliable.

[Zynerji]

The teams spend money to gain an advantage, even if it only lasts a season - or even a few races. If they had to share everything, there would be no incentive to compete in the development race. Just sit and wait to be given it by someone else. Result is that no one does anything new.

The team that 'sits and waits' loses to those that develop. I don't understand your concern?

Or they win by reliability as everything they use is tested, proven beneficial and reliable.

That can be done now... (see George Russell's point totals)